Re: Running two different profiles based on user loggin
Spencer Bailey wrote: Hi, I've created two different profiles in /etc. profile.1 and profile.2 which both contain different aliases etc. Based on the user logging in I want to be able to run the correct profile. Is it possible to put in a check in the /etc/profile that is a certain user logs in to run the profile. Like... ---check for user fred. If equal to fred . /etc/profile.1 otherwise . /etc/profile.2 Generic Unix advice, untested, should work on cygwin AFAICS: if test $USER = fred; then . /etc/profile.1 else . /etc/profile.2 fi Regards - M -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: gcc does not know about new and delete
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 04:29:53AM +0200, Markus E L wrote: Erich Dollansky wrote: Hi, Framk gave you the answer. Was the right answer ... gcc is a plain c compiler. ... but this is wrong. Gcc determines from the file suffic which language applies .cpp - c++ .c - C and so on. Calling it as g++ vs. calling it as gcc though determines which runtimes are linked automatically (and partly which include paths are set). gcc -o x x.cpp -lstdc++ works perfectly with the OPs program. That may be but it isn't guaranteed to work perfectly with every single C++ program out there. Exactly. That's why I said with the OP's program, the implication being that with other programs it might be necessary to add other libraries (or include paths), too. I've just been opposing the notion implied in gcc is a plain c compiler that the compiler frontend determines the language to be compiled. With gcc it determines the run time environment to be linked and (perhaps) visible interfaces (as usually configured manually by -I, but I'd like to note that's a theoretical possibility and empirically doesn't seem to happen at the moment). There are potentially other libraries which might be required for C++. You really should use g++ to link C++ programs. Right. I never said differently. -- Markus -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: gcc does not know about new and delete
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 12:47:36PM +0200, Markus E L wrote: There are potentially other libraries which might be required for C++. You really should use g++ to link C++ programs. Right. I never said differently. If you want to get technical, I didn't say that you did. Your message could be taken as implying that an alternate way to link c++ programs was to just add -lstdc++ to the command line. I wanted to Ah, no. I hope nobody drew that (wrong) conclusion. Actually I only answered into that thread -- which originally I perceived as completely resolved -- because I thought the last post (by Erich Dollansky) showed a slightly wrong picture of the role of the gcc driver. make sure that we didn't see subsequent email from someone who thought that was a good way to link c++ programs. Thank's for watching out for such possibilities and forestalling any misunderstandings. Regards -- M -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: gcc does not know about new and delete
Erich Dollansky wrote: Hi, Framk gave you the answer. Was the right answer ... gcc is a plain c compiler. ... but this is wrong. Gcc determines from the file suffic which language applies .cpp - c++ .c - C and so on. Calling it as g++ vs. calling it as gcc though determines which runtimes are linked automatically (and partly which include paths are set). gcc -o x x.cpp -lstdc++ works perfectly with the OPs program. I imagine the use of that is being able to compile with gcc to object code reagrdless of the language involved, then linking within a special runtime model, even if object files from multiple languages are being linked together. Regards -- Markus -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: math packages
Cole Radcliffe wrote: Is there any math package that I can install for free on cygwin that will allow me to do symbolic algebra and symbolically solve DEs and symbolically integrate better than my TI-89? Apparently Octave only produces numeric solutions. Maxima? I'm almost sure it's not in the cygwin distribution itself, but have heard about packages forcygwin floating around (it's written in common lisp and there is at least clisp in cygwin. Regards -- Markus -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: executing an executable
Cole Radcliffe wrote: I do an ls -la and I see I have an executable called executable.exe. I chmod to 777. Then I try to type execut and I press tab and it does not find it. When I type in the entire name and press enter, bash says the command is not found! It works fine on cygwin-x. Type ./executable or set your PATH variable to include . (the latter is usually not recommended, even in cygwin, I think). And try to read up about PATH. Regards -- Markus -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: executing an executable
Cole Radcliffe wrote: Cole Radcliffe wrote: I do an ls -la and I see I have an executable called executable.exe. I chmod to 777. Then I try to type execut and I press tab and it does not find it. When I type in the entire name and press enter, bash says the command is not found! It works fine on cygwin-x. Type ./executable or set your PATH variable to include . (the latter is usually not recommended, even in cygwin, I think). And try to read up about PATH. Regards -- Markus I tried set PATH=.:$PATH and that did not work. When I echoed the $PATH I realized that that command had no effect. What am I doing wrong? You're using bash? Then don't use 'set'. The syntax is varname=string-expression Instead set somethings ... sets the argument vector [EMAIL PROTECTED] It pays to read an introductory text on using the shell. Use one for Linux if you like, the shell is the same. Else you'll be pretty unhappy really soon and back here when (a) You're using shell metacharacter somewhere, (b) you get quoting problems, (c) you need to redirekt I/O, (d) You got filenames with whitespace in them or '-' at the beginning, or (e) some other environment variable setting is wron -- just to name some of the common problems for shell beginners :-). And then I expect you'll get flamed sooner or later (more likely sooner) because this is OT and not cygwin specific and I get flamed and/or TITTTLed because I even answered. So really try to look for some documentation on this issues. Time is running out :-). Regards -- Markus -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: [rxvt packaging bug?] New rxvt introduces broken font default
Charles Wilson wrote: Max Bowsher wrote: I just updated to rxvt-20050409-7, and the font changed to a very weird display using a proportional-width font, but displayed with each character left-aligned within a fixed-size area which appears to correspond to the largest character within the font. That's the normal behavior when I can't find the font you wanted. At a guess, this is because the new /etc/X11/app-defaults/Rxvt specifies bitstream vera sans mono and I have no font by that name. Yes. If that's the case, it is a bug for the rxvt package to depend on a non-standard font for its default display. Not exactly. rxvt is in a unique position in that it is used in two entirely separate modes. In native mode, it doesn't care which X fonts are installed -- so the rxvt package as a whole must not require: anything X-related. In X11 mode, obviously rxvt depends on a lot of xorg-x11-* packages. One of those -- xorg-x11-fscl -- happens to be an optional component of X11, and contains the bitstream fonts. But again, because of the native mode issue, the rxvt package itself can't require: xorg-x11-fscl without also indirectly require:ing all of X11. This would seriously inconvenience rxvt users who only use it in native mode. Gack. Couldn't that be solved by introducing a rxvt-x11 package that just pulls in (via the dependencies) all x11 stuff required for rxvt and rxvt itself. It would help not to miss things necessary for x11 but still allow to install bare rxvt only. Just a suggestion. Yes I know PTC and so on. Regards -- Markus -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: executing an executable
Cole Radcliffe wrote: Type ./executable or set your PATH variable to include . (the latter is usually not recommended, even in cygwin, I think). And try to read up about PATH. Regards -- Markus I tried set PATH=.:$PATH and that did not work. When I echoed the $PATH I realized that that command had no effect. What am I doing wrong? BTW: Please consider improving you quoting. For a moment I thought my MUA had been acting up again and I sent a mail with your address in the From field. :-( Regards -- Markus -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: sftp removing writable bit
Thorsten Kampe wrote: * Andrew DeFaria (Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:19:00 -0700) DePriest, Jason R. wrote: sftp gives you a familiar FTP shell; it is not just a command you run I understand that. you can list the files on the remote system and make decisions about what files you want instead of requiring that knowledge beforehand Simple. Just ssh remotemachine ls /path. Andrew, please, stop it. Do you really don't understand the difference between a simple command line tool like scp and a client that offers extended functionality?! Isn't that covered by the BWAM contest? - M -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: hacked package on server
3) Calm down, breath deeply, and try not to be so hysterical. Good advice, Dave. Did you try it once? - M -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
OT: Re: Why does the Reply-To have cygwin 3 times? Was: scripting and cygwin
1) Why does the Reply-To have cygwin 3 times? Because cfg's mails at the moment have 1 Reply-To- and 2 Mail-Followup-To-Fields in the header at the moment. Like this: Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Everyone elses mail over the list has only 1 Mail-Followup-To. Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com I can only assume that the list software adds a Mail-Followup-To instead of replacing already existing fields and that cfg already sets both fields himself to be sure that even people w/o list aware clients don't reply to him personally but always post to the list. - M -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: MD5s of setup.exe on mirrors.
LarryHall(Cygwin) writes: Alexander Sotirov wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: That + if you want to talk about trust then you should trust the method that we advertise for installing cygwin which is to click on the Install Cygwin Now! link. Are you saying that I should trust setup.exe downloaded from cygwin.com more than setup.exe downloaded from a mirror? That doesn't make sense. Even if I download setup.exe from cygwin.com, it still fetches the package data from a mirror. As far as I know the package data is not signed, so setup.exe cannot verify that is has not been tampered with. If a mirror has a modified bash package with a malicious binary in it, the result will be no different than running an untrusted setup.exe. In fact, the mirror list used by setup.exe does not contain the official ftp.cygwin.com site, giving users no choice but to use (and trust) mirrors. Do you actually have a question or do you just want to speak your piece? He probably forgot that the list is for questions only. Seems to me that you're asking questions but then not really paying attention to the answers, even when they come from a project leader. Perhaps you want to come at this again and clarify whether you're looking for information or just want to make a statement. Shaking my head. Regards -- Markus -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: MD5s of setup.exe on mirrors.
Christopher Faylor writes: On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 03:13:58PM +0200, ls-cygwin-2006 wrote: Brian Dessent writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please anyone touch setup.exe? If the mirrors pick it up then we (you! :) know that it is, somehow, a time stamping issue. The issue can probably not be cleared up right now and is probably not worth the trouble, but perhaps it can be just fixed. I've touched the setup.exe on cygwin.com. Thanks Brian. It seems to work: Not all mirrors have picked up the change yet, but those that have and those which I checke are now carrying the executable from ftp.cygwin.com. I think you should email the hostmaster of ftp.mirror.ac.uk if the one byte discrepancy continues because it would indicate a flaw in their mirroring process. Thankfully I'm spared to argue that, but the executable was wrong at all mirrors I checked, not only ftp.mirror.ac.uk. That would suggests a common cause, very probably something at the master site (which is ftp.cygwin.com, isn't it?). Whatever -- I can't see me writing the host masters of some 20 or 30 mirrors to point them to an error that was probably upstream. (Or did I somehow miss the significance of ftp.mirror.ac.uk in that process?) But thankfully that is academic now: It was actually all academic before since: 1) there was nothing wrong with the setup.exe on the mirrors and 2) people shouldn't have been running setup.exe from the mirrors to begin with. That' why, (a) I was not concerned about setup.exe at the mirrors being wrong but rather about the discrepancy between setup.exe's md5sum and the sums listed in the accompanying md5.sum. I feared, it might irritate people actually browsing the mirrors. But (b) since you haven't got any complaints for the last 20 months or so (the time since the discrepancy exists), you're probably even got your wish granted already: Nobody is taking setup.exe from the mirrors (or they don't care for the md5sums). This really does not, IMO, deserve as much attention as has been given here. PS: Brian, I've been living under the impression that we are under the rule not to include cleartext email addresses in quotes? Is that still so and would you, please, not burn my address further? Your From: is not formatted to include a name so I suspect that Brian, like I (and Corinna, FWIW), has an email client which uses the email address in that case. I understand. I was not aware of the existence of such clients, instead assumed they would provide a mangling function like [EMAIL PROTECTED] - abc AT xy DOT z. Good to know I can do something to make that work - better. Regards -- Markus -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: MD5s of setup.exe on mirrors.
LarryHall(Cygwin) writes: Alexander Sotirov wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: It was actually all academic before since: 1) there was nothing wrong with the setup.exe on the mirrors and 2) people shouldn't have been running setup.exe from the mirrors to begin with. Can you elaborate on why people shouldn't run setup.exe from the mirrors? I don't see what is the difference between setup.exe and the other packages. If you trust the mirror for all other binaries, why don't you trust it for setup.exe? Propagation time delays would be one reason. Since it's easy to grab 'setup.exe' from the source, there's no sense using one that might be dated. setup.exe is/was almost two years old. It doesn't seem to change too often. Did you mean setup.ini instead? But setup.ini is coming from the mirror, isn't it? (And this is a serious question: If it comes from the mirror, what happens if a mirror has setup.ini updated, but not all of the packages yet?) Regards -- Markus -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Broken VNC link at http://cygwin.com/links.html
Hi, I hope this is on topic for the list. The link to VNC at the page mentioned in the subject http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/ is broken. It seems www.uk.research.att.com has been dropped from the DNS. Possible replacements: - http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/dtg/attarchive/vnc/index.html (a archive of the vanished site AFAIK) - http://www.realvnc.com (The official successor) - http://www.tightvnc.com/ (Another popular VNC) The Gentoo wiki has a more complete overview: http://gentoo-wiki.com/VNC. In case the list is not the place to report this, my deepest apologies. I couldn't find another address in a hurry and would be most deeply indebted, if, in case I did wrong, those in the know could just point me without much further ado to a mail address where observations of this kind are being received. Thanks -- Markus -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: MD5s of setup.exe on mirrors.
DaveKorn writes: On 14 May 2007 21:27, Markus E.L. wrote: often. Did you mean setup.ini instead? But setup.ini is coming from the mirror, isn't it? Well, it comes from the mirror, same as the packages do, but it isn't generated there, if that's what you mean. No, that wasn't what I meant. I thought, just for a moment, wether setup.exe wouldn't take the setup.ini from the master site every time to ensure that it is current. Of course then the mirror site wouldn't necessarily be up date, so that was not really good idea. Just triggered by Larry's idea about the propagation delay, which, then, I really don't get. (And this is a serious question: If it comes from the mirror, what happens if a mirror has setup.ini updated, but not all of the packages yet?) Setup.ini is autogenerated on cygwin.com every five or ten minutes or so. It will only change /after/ the package changes on cygwin.com, so the mirror will either get the changed package but not the new .ini, or it will get both, but it shouldn't be possible to get the new .ini without the changed package unless it is travelling backwards in time. I should possibly read up some more about running a mirror. What I thought though, was more along the lines of that the mirror starts downloading the master site from the top and might fetch setup.ini and then take considerable time until atually getting the changed package deeper down the tree. This is probably not how mirrors are actually run (by doing a plain rsync or recursive wget). Which would be a very odd way to run a mirror! :-) But very interesting. I sometimes would want a mirror that travels back in time. Regards -- Markus -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Mirrors in GPL violation? + Re: MD5s of setup.exe on mirrors.
Buchbinder,Barry(NIH/NIAID)[E] writes: long explanation Barry, my and (AFAI understand) Alex' problem is not with using setup - I for my part am quite comfortable with how I start setup. Alex (in my humble opinion rightly) is concerned with questions of trust and endorsement (like: cygwin.com lists the mirrors as source of the software, then declines any responsibility for the actual content of those mirrors down to we cannot be bothered with working with the mirror admins even if they (would) carry the wrong software with our name on it -- I wouldn't handle it like that, but YMMV). I now prefer not to touch this subject, having already gotten flamed my ass off this week (so I'm tending the blisters instead) but I think, Alex' considerations (which have broader implications on how do I, how does anyone distribute software) are legitimate. Perhaps they can even lead to a wishlist for the next generation of setup? Cryptographically strong signed checksums are all the rage presently in package managers and for a good reason: A malicious mirror or a careless mirror administrator provide an excellent attack vector (this has already happened in a number of related scenarios) and it would be a boon to the users of cygwin not to have to trust the security or the comptetence of some university run mirrors (no staff, no money) instead of only the cygwin team. My concern on the other side was only: What the hell is md5.sum (on the mirrors) then for, if it doesn't contain the right sums. If I where the cygwin team, and felt so strongly about nobody ever running setup.exe from the mirrors, I'd probably pull it from the master sites (and consequently the mirrors) and replace it by a README effectively telling the reader to get/run setup.exe from cygwin.com. This would be in concordance with the fact that setup is already organised as a seperate project. http://cygwin.com/setup/ Interesting enough, setup seems to be GPL (most of the sources carry a GPL header), but the mirrors don't carry the source (since the source is only on http://cygwin.com/setup). Do they violate the GPL then? Pulling setup.exe from the mirrors' master site would fix that too. This thread has been going on for close to 3 days now. Is there a well known time limit on threads? Regards -- Markus -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: MD5s of setup.exe on mirrors.
Buchbinder,Barry(NIH/NIAID)[E] writes: I understand that you are perturbed that setup does not behave as you might have expected. Did you actually read what me or Alex wrote? Me seems none of us expressed ANY perturbation with regard to that setup wouldn't behave as expected or advertised. However, having used cygwin and followed this mailing list since well before setup was introduced (one downloaded a single zip file in those days), You know -- I've been around there, too -- only not on this list. I can tell you that you are not the first person to question this or that aspect of setup. Let it suffice for me to say that the people who designed and programmed setup actually use it. They are well aware of any problems and limitations that setup.exe might have. They put a lot of thought into its design and a lot of work into its coding. I would suggest that if they made decisions differently than you might have, you should consider giving them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they had good reasons for things to be arranged as they are. In other words: Do never ask for additional features of point out the weakness of existing solutions (this has not been my issue in this thread, but nonetheless I'm slightly disturbed by the policy you're advocating here). Otherwise, PTC. Of course. I'll be happy to contribute (still a patch probably fares better if it isn't a feature the original authors and upstream maintainers don't consider undesirable or plainly superfluous). OT_aside This reminds me of a conversation I heard over the weekend. A man showed a physician (a professor at Johns Hopkins Medical School) a nasty rash that he had. She told him that it might be caused by an infectious agent and that he should see his doctor ASAP and possibly get antibiotics. He started arguing with her about the sensibility of her diagnosis and advice. When I realized the absurdity of the situation, I could not refrain from interjecting Why are you arguing with her!?! He responded that he was a lawyer and tended to argue with everyone. /OT_aside Guess what: I find the story appropriate: I noticed a difference in the md5sums and asked for the reasons or wether anybody noticed. Result: People start arguing with me. Intensively. On slightly related, but not quite the same topic. All lawyers? If one is really disturbed by these issues, one might look into ways other than cygwin to get POSIX onto a Windows machine. With other words: If you talk back too much, then go the hell away. Again I find your policy slightly disturbing. I -- for my part -- have only be asking for the -- in the mean time excessively discussed and actually fixed -- difference in the advertised and the actual md5sums. Don't you find it over the top, somehow, to conclude from that, that Cygwin somehow is not for the likes of me? What is the moral in that? Straight cygwin-ers don't check md5sums, straight cygwin-ers don't talk back, even if being 'misunderstood'? What happened to free speech? What to the spirit of freedom and openness? It's not that I actually expected _help_ on the md5sum issue: I more expected to be _helpful_ by pointing out a -- admittedly minor -- technical problem, which then could be fixed. If anything (any observation) I post to the list is met like this, I could as well start with insults right away -- since we end up with you don't belong here or what fool you are (below) anyway after some mails back- and forward. We could save the time and start with flaming (or denying each others right to post here or to even use cygwin) right away. Or I could skip that step and just blog somewhere else look what fools they are, haha, the md5sums differ and they haven't noticed for 20 month, haha. Not helpful, right, but since what I write is perceived as an insult to the project or as inappropriate nitpicking anyway, I could just skip the intermediate steps, if I'd be interested in blackening cygwin (which I'm not, actually), right? Since I'm not doing that, I'm probably only craving for the pain. again shaking my head For the record, here's what I do. Well -- that wasn't the topic with any of us. We know how to run setup (all three ways: From cygwin.com, from the mirrors, from downloaded copies, even from CDs). Do you take us for fools? Regards -- Markus -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Mirrors in GPL violation? + Re: MD5s of setup.exe on mirrors.
DaveKorn writes: On 15 May 2007 00:24, Markus E.L. wrote: is concerned with questions of trust and endorsement That's the underlying source of your error right there: a false assumption. So Alex has been concerned with different questions? My apologies if I read him wrong there. (like: cygwin.com lists the mirrors as source of the software, then declines any responsibility for the actual content of those mirrors Yep. Welcome to the internet; google 'autonomous system' to find out more. How funny. down to we cannot be bothered with working with the mirror admins even if they (would) carry the wrong software with our name on it Mirrors get automatically tested and delisted if they aren't up-to-date. Apparently only non-trivial discrepancies matter. All not my problem, really. I know, I'd be interested if someone pretended to carry my software and actually doesn't. Forgive me my misunderstanding, but since you say, that isn't anyway what Alex has been writing about, it's all moot anywhere. -- I wouldn't handle it like that, but YMMV Which is precisely why you're wasting time here. How that? I now prefer not to touch this subject, having already gotten flamed my ass off this week (so I'm tending the blisters instead) but I think, Alex' considerations You are conflating two entirely different issues here. There is absolutely no connection between what copyrights do I have to observe if I want to distribute something and some mirrors aren't up-to-date. There is a connection: The limited resources, both in patience and in time I have. So, as I said. I'm not interested to continue here, I just want(ed) to clear up your's and Barry's confusion that I have been asking for setup to work differently. Me, I'm just the guy who noted a difference between the advertised (md5.sum) and th actual md5sums. No need to oppose me: The sums were really different. Perhaps they can even lead to a wishlist for the next generation of setup? Yes, that's a reasonable discussion, particularly if you're volunteering to do the work yourself. Much less so if you aren't. However, if you do want to help create Well -- I didn't push the topic of the thread to the topic of setup features, actually Even Alex didn't (I think, but I'm much too lazy now to read the whole bloody thread again). With what my pronouncment that you quoted above I intended to point out that questioning a current feature set is not always so outrageous as Barry tries to make it out. As it is, I'm actually interested in extending setup.exe. That will not be fast in coming, because I haven't groked all of what setup does at the moment. So no promises, but I'll keep it in the queue -- somewhere, somehow. such a scheme, patches and discussions about setup.exe should be sent to the -apps list. OK. cygwin-apps it is. Cryptographically strong signed checksums are all the rage That isn't exactly a technical argument, is it? No. It's a reference to the fact that other people have technical arguments I don't want to rehash here. That other projects have (as Barry would say it) put a lot of thought into its design and a lot of work into [the] (its) coding of their package managers and have come up with ways not to have trust the mirrors. Since those people are so competent it might pay to look at their reasons. I actually wonder what you're taking me for. (Warning: This is an explanation that has to be read in the context of trying to explain the semantics of are all the rage in a given context in a technical discussion. It is no, I repeat no, attempt to actually insinuate now that setup.exe should be changed in any way. The original quote stems from another attempt to explain the legitimacy of discussing the absence of features from programs without intenting to malign or disparage the original authors of aforesaid software. The attempt had been made by other people than myself and its legitimacy been drawn in doubt by other people than myself. I was not happy with that, so felt the need to point out that I don't agree with the latter. In no way that constitutes an attempt to solicite for the changes in question -- just to avoid that specific misunderstanding, Dave.) My concern on the other side was only: What the hell is md5.sum (on the mirrors) then for, if it doesn't contain the right sums. As I explained: transmission checksum. I never questioned that: There was (obviously) a transmission error. I pointed that out. Got the answer, neither setup.exe nor it's md5sum matter anyhow. So why post a wrong md5.sum? To give people the impression they got a transmission error from the mirror to their machine? If not -- why not fix it? And stop accusing me off whatever along the way? Not security, not authentication, nothing else at all. I did never say that, sigh. Your mistake Your mistake, Dave, is not reading, what _I_ wrote. I'm not Alex. and your fault if you think that it's
Re: Mirrors in GPL violation? + Re: MD5s of setup.exe on mirrors.
Hi Dave, Markus E.L. writes: DaveKorn writes: snipped Rereading parts of the thread and your reply, I fear it happens again: Lot's of reproaches in your's and Barry's replys, accusations of stuff _I_ never wrote, down to questioning the legitimacy of addressing features of any kind in any software (which I didn't but still consider legit if done by others). I think I don't overreact now, but I also think, that the patience of the rest of the list with my (I still think justified attempts) to defend myself against that continous misreading of what I write is limited. I only regret that their patience with your continous attempts to distort what I write is much larger. Talk about loyality -- it's a fine thing if you got it. Whatever -- I'm done with this sub-thread (concering what setup does or should do and wether I really talked about that). I'll try to generally restrict my postings to the list in future and (AFAP) ignore answers that are not to the point. In the same spirit, please, ignore that stupid mail of me about the broken link. That would make me a script kiddy anyway, that I notice broken links, and I'm sure that the person maintaining the web site is grown up and adult enough to need my input to notice stuff like this. For all I know it could even be broken intentionally in memoriam the dead VNC site. So please, ignore, I don't want to have another thread of that kind at my hand. Regards -- Markus -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: [OT] PCYMTNQREAIYR
Markus Schönhaber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [manually deleted] wrote: PS: Brian, I've been living under the impression that we are under the rule not to include cleartext email addresses in quotes? Is that still so and would you, please, not burn my address further? If you don't want your address burnt, then why don't you add a real name to the From: field of your posts but expect people to manually remove your email address from the quotation header? Because I was not aware, that it is the absence of the real name that triggers inserting an _unmangled_ mail address. As it is, there is just the email in the 'From:' since I (just for the moment) have to add the 'From:' address manually each time. A thing they wouldn't need to do if there was something more than just your mail address in From:. Regards -- Markus -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
