RE: rename using regexpr - is it possible?

2021-10-25 Thread Fergus Daly via Cygwin
-Original Message- From: Eliot Moss Sent: 24 October 2021 17:11 To: Fergus Daly ; 'cygwin@cygwin.com' Subject: Re: rename using regexpr - is it possible? On 10/24/2021 4:55 PM, Fergus Daly wrote: >>> I might be wrong but: >>> The Cygwin implementation of rename seems completely

Re: Snapshot of Cygwin from Windows XP era

2021-10-25 Thread Peter A. Castro
On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 05:14:12PM +0100, Cygwin List wrote: > Hi all, > > I was wondering if there exists a snapshot of the Cygwin repos at a time > when Windows XP was still supported? Try the Cygwin Time Machine which has a continual collection of all Cygwin packages:

Re: emacs 28.0.60-1.f7e6c199bf (TEST)

2021-10-25 Thread Jim Reisert AD1C
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 2:14 PM Ken Brown wrote: > On 10/18/2021 3:15 PM, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote: > > Here is a macro I use quite frequently, with a line like this: > > > > # New Exception Call: PD0TEST/J > > > > The macro consists of: > > > > - CTRL-A > > - set mark > > - CTRL-F until you

[PATCH v2] Cygwin: Make native clipboard layout same for 32- and 64-bit

2021-10-25 Thread Mark Geisert
This patch unifies the layout of the clipboard descriptor cygcb_t for 32- and 64-bit Cygwin. It allows correct copy/paste between the two environments without corruption of user's copied data and without access violations due to interpreting that data as a size field. The definitions of

Re: A Bug related to ImageTk in Python on Cygwin

2021-10-25 Thread Friedrich Romstedt via Cygwin
Am Do., 21. Okt. 2021 um 10:58 Uhr schrieb Friedrich Romstedt : > > Maybe I should consult Pillow Upstream? Just half an hour ago I filed an Issue with Pillow: https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/issues/5795, hoping for additional input. -Friedrich -- Problem reports:

Re: [PATCH] Cygwin: Make native clipboard layout same for 32- and 64-bit

2021-10-25 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Oct 24 08:58, Takashi Yano wrote: > Hi Corinna, > > On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 17:11:13 +0200 > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > Just to close this up prior to the 3.3.0 release... > > > > Given we never actually strived for 32<->64 bit interoperability, it's > > hard to argue why this should be