Re: Another GPL violation: Re: MinimalisticBuild-Environmentforwin32 (~7.5MB)

But I really think, there are also many people, which don`t take it that serious, as you do... The GPL is meant to PROTECT OpenSource software - but I don`t see anything that i`m doing bad things to OpenSource or to the Opensource Community - Far from it ! - Original Mes

Re: xsltproc segfaults after upgrading to docbookxslstylesheetsv1.60.1

On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 09:32, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > > Thank you. I stepped down because I realised I wasn't fulfilling my > > obligations and simply didn't want to get whipped to devote time I don't > > have, on someone elses schedule, not because I wanted to see the package > > removed (I don'

RE: Added setup.exe to User's Guide

On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 09:35, Hannu E K Nevalainen (garbage mail) wrote: > (1) > I had the impression that setup.exe saved paths within it's *ini-file or > some such; thus forcing one to have *exactly* the same path at cache-disk > creation AND use time. setup doesn't. :]. Rob -- GPG key avai

Re: xsltproc segfaults after upgrading to docbook xslstylesheetsv1.60.1

On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 00:32, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > Robert, > > I started working on this one last night. Now I know what you mean by these > packages being a bugger to build OOTB. In the coming week I'm going to be > testing this and release a test package for people to try, if you don't mind >

Re: xsltproc segfaults after upgrading to docbook xsl stylesheetsv1.60.1

On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 23:15, Patrick Eisenacher wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > I'm waiting already for more than a month for this to happen. Needless > to say, I'm pretty frustrated. But despite Robert claiming to take care > of this in his initial response you cited below, no update was ever > publishe

Re: Emacs, adding PHP as major mode

On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 22:40, Klaus Friis Østergaard wrote: > What about adding PHP as major mode in emacs in the autoinstall and download > of files? You could always package up the php mode and have that depend on emacs. Rob -- GPG key available at:

Another GPL violation: Re: Minimalistic Build-Environment forwin32 (~7.5MB)

http://rockbox.haxx.se/mail/archive/rockbox-archive-2003-01/0108.shtml Has links to cygwin in binary form, no source. The poster has a for-spam address, and the list is closed to much effort to get the message through for me. Hopefully someone here will clue them into the GPL! Rob -- GPG

Possible GPL violation.

Robert, I'm writing to you because I noticed that has instructions for downloading a 17Mb archive of the cygwin utilities, but no link for the source code for the same utilities. Are you aware that the GPL requires *you* to mak

Re: squid's quit ;)

On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 14:27, CoolCold wrote: > in event log such record exists: > -- > The description for Event ID ( 0 ) in Source ( Cygwin ) cannot be > found. The local computer may not have the necessary registry > information or message DLL files to display messages from a remote > comput

Re: Invalid compiler error

On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 08:01, Tron Thomas wrote: > I'm sorry. I misread what you wrote. I thought you were suggesting > that I try the #elif directive in simple coding example to see if the > compiler would accept it. This is was I used: > This program compiles just fine, and if I define the p

RE: Installing cygwin NOT from web

On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 10:18, Ross Smith wrote: > That seems quite clear to me. Setup ignores what's in the cache; > anything that's already in the cache but wasn't installed will be > downloaded again, unnecessarily. Which is not what the original poster said. Anyway, this is going down a rabbit

Re: Installing cygwin NOT from web

On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 09:54, Charles D. Russell wrote: > Is the following statement correct? > > Installing from web, rather than downloading to disk, eliminates the risks > of !) having to download the same file twice and 2) having duplicate files > (from different mirrors) retained in the cache.

RE: Installing cygwin NOT from web

On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 09:10, Ross Smith wrote: > > No. > > Charles said that setup *ignores* the caches and skips what is > > installed. > > I said that setup will redownload what is in the cache. > > I still don't understand the difference. He says it ignores the cache > and downloads it all ag

RE: Installing cygwin NOT from web

On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 07:59, Ross Smith wrote: > > From: Robert Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 06:17, Charles D. Russell wrote: > > > But as I understand it, setup.exe ignores the cache and > > looks only at what > > &

[ANNOUNCEMENT] New release of setup.exe (2.249.2.10)

ov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * compress_gz.cc (compress_gz::construct): Always initialize key me= mbers to ensure the destructor does the right thing. 2003-02-28 Max Bowsher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * main.cc (set_default_sec): Add logging. 2002-11-26 Robert Collins <[EMAI

Re: Installing cygwin NOT from web

On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 06:17, Charles D. Russell wrote: > Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > >>FYI, setup has a "Download from Internet" mode which creates the cache > >>without actually installing. > > But as I understand it, setup.exe ignores the cache and looks only at what > has been actually inst

Re: Bug in passwd-grp.sh

On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 15:19, Robert Collins wrote: > On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 14:37, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: > > At 02:28 PM 3/13/2003 +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > > > > >Do we have that new passwd-grp to be uploaded? > > > > Yes > > > > &

Re: Bug in passwd-grp.sh

On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 14:37, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: > At 02:28 PM 3/13/2003 +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > > >Do we have that new passwd-grp to be uploaded? > > Yes > > <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00316.html> > > Pierre Right, an

Re: Bug in passwd-grp.sh

On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 13:14, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 11:45:21PM -, Max Bowsher wrote: > > I just completely wiped and reinstalled Cygwin, to test setup-2.249.2.10. > > Will post further with results. > > > > Something rather odd happened - here are the passwd and gro

Re: setup snapshot?

On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 22:01, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > I've had no problems with it so far (NT4 box) - but I've just been > updating and installing a few new packages. > > Would you like me to test a fresh install as well? The more feedback, the better. Rob -- GPG key available at:

Re: The install dir

On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 22:29, Thorsten Kampe wrote: > * Robert Collins (03-03-12 06:18 +0100) > > On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 15:46, Patrick Nelson wrote: > >>> Thorsten Kampe wrote: > >> ->>>> > >> I don't have the slightest idea

RE: The install dir

On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 15:46, Patrick Nelson wrote: > > Thorsten Kampe wrote: > - > I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about The setup > directory is *not* temporary. Neither the packages are deleted after > installation nor the older ones after updating. > --

setup snapshot?

Any other feedback on the increment setup snapshot? It is meant to fix the permission problems (another of which occured today) that are plaguing new users. I'd really like to have a success story from an NT user with that snapshot before making it the primary installer Rob -- GPG key ava

Re: New setup.exe snapshot available.

On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 02:41, Hans Horn wrote: > A look at setup.ini that was newly created, revealed the following: > > setup-timestamp: 1047304219 > setup-version: 2.249.2.5 > > Looks like stale cheese, doesn't it? Not at all. You appear to be making an assumption that is incorrect. The setu

Re: Can someone explain the 'obvious' to me...or is it a Grimm'sBro. tale...?

On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 13:04, linda w (cyg) wrote: > Is that the only reason > because some program may someday write into those directories and > may write files with the same names into those directories? In the mists of time, such programs *did* exist. IIRC MKS NutCracker was one of them. Rob

RE: Can someone explain the 'obvious' to me...or is it a Grimm'sBro. tale...?

On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 13:34, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > > I've considered mounting "C:\Documents And Settings\Users\me" as "/home/me" for > a long time, just to see what would happen more than anything. This could maybe > be helpful if there's actually anybody out there using Windows' mytholog

New setup.exe snapshot available.

There is a new setup.exe snapshot. It's a minor increment over the current setup. Specifically it should address the problems with ntsec being on by default, and a recent bug report where proxies that need a username and an empty password couldn't be used. You can download the snapshot from http:

Re: He wrote, then she wrote, ... (was RE: when is next release ofsetup.exe)

On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 11:17, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >So, for you to get snapshot access, ask Chris for > >a) scp upload access > >b) write access to the setup-snapshots directory. > > Don't "ask Chris". Go to http://sourceware.org/ and fill out the form > referenced on that page. List [EM

Re: He wrote, then she wrote, ... (was RE: when is next release of setup.exe)

=== - Original Message - From: "Max Bowsher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Cygwin (Robert Collins)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 10:56 AM Subject: Re: He wrote, then she wrote, ... (was RE: when is next release of

Re: He wrote, then she wrote, ... (was RE: when is next release of setup.exe)

=== - Original Message - From: "Max Bowsher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Cygwin (Robert Collins)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 10:56 AM Subject: Re: He wrote, then she wrote, ... (was RE: when is next release of

Re: setup.exe is too small

On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:02, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > Christopher Faylor wrote > > > And, different agendas as well. No one in free software has to work on > > things that they don't want to work on. > > > > And, the theory that "You know how to do it. You're doing all this > > other stuff, why d

Re: setup.exe is too small

On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 11:28, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > Yes. It would be nice if there were such easily accessable and promently > displayed things on the Cygwin site. I'll repeat the offer I made last time this wish was expressed: If you will maintain it, I am happy for you do so, on the cygwin si

Re: Using the button to "Reply" (RE: setup.exe is too small)

On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 07:03, Hannu E K Nevalainen (garbage mail) wrote: > > I have appended the headers of the message I replied to, for ref. > > > Hmm...? After proofreading; These looks odd: > -- > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > --

Re: apt-get (was Re: setup.exe: ... )

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 11:24, Robert Citek wrote: > Hello Robert, > > At 07:16 AM 3/6/2003 +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > >Not that I'm aware of. I really need to refresh the dpkg port in cygwin > >at some point. > > > >I had foolishly hoped that porting it w

RE: setup.exe: something besides C++?

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 03:18, Rick Rankin wrote: > I have a question. Do contributions to setup require the same copyright > assignment as contributions to the dll? I've looked at the contributions page, > the FAQ, and the assignment form itself, and the answer doesn't appear obvious > to me. > >

Re: apt-get (was Re: setup.exe: ... )

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 03:10, Robert Citek wrote: > On the linux side, that's what apt-get does. And does it very nicely. Ask > any Debian user. Apparently, some people are working on porting atp-get to > Cygwin: > http://debian-cygwin.sourceforge.net > The dates are about 18 months old. Are

Re: setup.exe: something besides C++?

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 02:34, Joe Buehler wrote: > I am one of the ones who would like to make install enhancements for > my own use -- unattended installs for example -- but the existing code > is not easy for me to figure out... Have you considered asking for pointers to the code areas to change

RE: setup.exe: something besides C++?

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 02:37, Vince Hoffman wrote: > I think here the answer is the traditional open source one, if you need/want > it that much then go for it and code away, and if other people want like it > then they'll join you. All the info to code something like this is available > if you feel

Re: setup.exe: something besides C++?

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 02:32, Joe Buehler wrote: > Pavel Tsekov wrote: > > > But then, it would become _huge_. You'd have to download a bunch of other > > software just to install Cygwin. > > You would use a self-extracting executable. It's easy enough to do with > the info-zip software. Riiight

Re: setup.exe: something besides C++?

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 02:26, Steve Coleman wrote: > It wouldn't replace setup.exe since the initial install would still have > to be done but it might be a good idea to have something that could > check if there are updates to designated packages that are deemed > important to the specific Cyg

Re: WinXP installation - can't access all of the package on theSelect Packages page

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 08:48, Max Bowsher wrote: > > So, ugliness and sloppy appearance for all, in order to deal with a rarely > encountered bug. > > No, not a good solution. You better watch it Max, you'll end up sounding like me! Rob -- GPG key available at:

Re: compiling setup.exe (was Re: Distributing .ISO files.)

On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 12:01, Robert Citek wrote: > At 07:27 PM 3/3/2003 -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > >> I'm still getting my feet wet with the Cygwin sources, CVS, patch, etc. > >> For example, I downloaded the setup module and compiled it. Instead of a > >> ~100 K file, mine was ~10 MB. It

Re: setup dies on local install

On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 12:43, Steve Miller wrote: > (Why, > oh why, dear God, can't Red Hat just make a big > archive file?) For the same reason you haven't read the FAQ http://cygwin.com/faq/faq.html#SEC14. Rob -- GPG key available at: . signatur

Re: Minimum Install for Executable Distrubution

On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 22:48, Thorsten Kampe wrote: > So you're telling me that > > a) there is no particular reason why the Cygwin creators made a "Base > Category" (different to all other categories (Editors, Shells)) There was a very long discussion on the cygwin-apps list about the categorie

Re: Command-line options for setup.exe

A cute thing that the iteration interface to the command line options would enable is a 'tip of the day' - randomly choose a parameter from the collection, and show just it to the user. (Presumably combined with some static tips on the GUI :]). Rob -- GPG key available at:

Re: Command-line options for setup.exe

On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 10:26, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > That will let setup iterate over the options, extracting the help text > > and placing into a GUI text area (or a combobox etc etc). > > Hmm, build a const String and pop up a MessageBox? > Igor As a 'For instance', yes. Rob --

Re: Command-line options for setup.exe

On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 09:46, Max Bowsher wrote: > Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Max Bowsher wrote: > >> No, building it as a MinGW app is fine. > >> But it must be run from a CYGWIN=tty shell. > > > > Oh, ok. I don't use "tty" myself, so I needed it built as a Cygwin > > app.

Re: GPL Violation

On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 05:44, Christopher Faylor wrote: > Maybe I will make the DLL available but not advertise it for people like > you who just want a place to point people. That would mean that you would > remove cygwin1.dll from your distribution and then just point people to > this "secret" l

Re: [avail for test] libtool-devel-20030216-1

On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 08:47, Max Bowsher wrote: > I've discovered something which is only a problem when doing a > CC='gcc -mno-cygwin' compile - namely, that the new wrapper executables do > execv("/bin/bash",...), which quite obviously, msvcrt doesn't understand. > > Now, I don't think that ma

Re: xsltproc segfaults after upgrading to docbook xsl stylesheetsv1.60.1

On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 06:14, Patrick Eisenacher wrote: > Greetings, > May I ask the libxml and libxslt package maintainer to upgrade the > packages to a newer version that fixes the crash. Are you still the > maintainer, Robert? Yes, and this takes the current version from 'old' to 'old + bugg

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sun, 2003-02-16 at 11:48, Peter A. Castro wrote: > On 16 Feb 2003, Robert Collins wrote: > > > On Sun, 2003-02-16 at 10:41, Peter A. Castro wrote: > > > Where, exactly, did you read this (a link to some doc would be > > > enightening)? I see nothing about this in

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sun, 2003-02-16 at 10:41, Peter A. Castro wrote: > > Where, exactly, did you read this (a link to some doc would be > enightening)? I see nothing about this in Googles documentation of Page > Ranking. And, google isn't the only search engine out there. I'd think > you'd want to try and get

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 10:53, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On 15 Feb 2003, Robert Collins wrote: > > > On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 09:28, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > I was also thinking of creating a '/dev/tty' file in the archiv

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:07, andrew clarke wrote: > > --08:06:16-- http://cygwin.com/setup.exe > > 4 Last-Modified: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 00:50:47 GMT > > Hmm, nobody is working on it after all? Thats the production release. We change that only when we are *sure* that the new version is fully st

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:23, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > Or have > >web crawlers changed such that this doesn't work anymore? > > I'll try that. Thanks. I wouldn't: google actively lowers your page ranking when it sees such garbage. Rob -- GPG key available at:

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:31, andrew clarke wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:45:37PM +, John M. Adams wrote: > > > How do you get just 1 package via setup.exe? ... > So, to install a single package you will want to mark everything you > already have installed as Keep, and everything else as

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:59, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I suppose so, but, again, it seems like many people *recently* are unaware > of the setup program entirely. Hmm, I think we should add a new screen to setup.exe. After the install completes.. "Your cygwin install is now ready to use. Ple

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 09:28, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > You know, I almost mentioned that but I think that someone (Robert > Collins maybe?) may have suggested this previously and I adamantly > intoned that these were ".tar.bz2 files dammit". We had a long thread on

Re: setup.exe joblist for downloading

On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 18:53, Randall R Schulz wrote: > Chris, > > Au contraire! Which version of the setup.ini syntax does it support? (And did you leverage the setup.exe parser?) Rob -- GPG key available at: . signature.asc Description: This is

Re: "Couldn not exec" error message

On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 14:13, Ke-Wei Ma wrote: > Lets give this one more try. It appears that my original request for help was > met with some slight hostility by some list serv purists/ watch dogs. Which part of "this is offtopic" don't you understand? There is a dedicated list for cygwin X-ser

Re: Packaging software built with cygwin

On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 05:55, Jay Maynard wrote: > > A setup.ini with just the cygwin DLL in it seems pretty simple. > > True. OTOH, when setup.exe changes, the format of that file is subject to > change (see Igor's warning in the message where he first suggested that). I > can insulate myself fr

Re: [RFC]: Meet Cyppy, the irritating Cygwin mascot!

On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 14:10, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > I hereby formally propose the character shown in the attached image, known only > as "Cyppy", for the honor of "Official Cygwin Mascot". As an alternate name, > "Cyggy" may also work, but I'm partial to "Cyppy" for some reason. Sick man, si

Re: Cygwin Release process

Bill, IMO you are missing a key point: Cygwin is volunteer maintained. No release manager volunteer, and no stable release maintainer (who will maintain stable packages after they become stale) have stepped up. The *only* way you will get a stable release is to: 1) offer to take on all the extr

Re: Security Issue with Cygwin

On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 11:48, Lambeth Darwin wrote: > To whom it may concern; > > Not sure if you know this or not, but the default configuration with Cygwin allows >any user to change to any directory on a W2K box and delete whatever files they want. >I have installed it with the current default

Re: Adding/removing custom mirror URLs in setup.exe...

On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 21:25, Johan Bezem wrote: > Maybe it doesn't parse the ftp://... string itself, but in our case it > *works* nonetheless. > Can it be that the string is passed to the FTP-server unaltered, and the Are you using the IE connection type, or the HTTP proxy type? If so, then they

Re: How to automatically process file/dir names?

On Sat, 2003-01-18 at 22:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > Quite a few problems arise from within self-written scripts when dealing > with (Windows') file and directory names containing spaces. Are you aware that spaces in file and directory names are legal on unix? Rob -- GPG key

Re: Adding/removing custom mirror URLs in setup.exe...

On Sat, 2003-01-18 at 06:20, Max Bowsher wrote: > Don't know whether setup understands usernames/passwords. I'll dig in the > source tomorrow, if no one has answered by then. It should, Corinna IIRC uses ftp w/passwords. Rob -- GPG key available at:

Re: "Cannot create a file when that file already exists"installation problem

On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 08:57, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > Redirecting this to the correct list. Setup.exe user problems are on-topic for [EMAIL PROTECTED] last I heard. The only time they need to be redirected is when they start going into design/feature changes/package creation issues. Rob -- GPG

RE: Repost, different list...File::Spec, cygwin, Syntactic vs. Semantic path analysis

On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 19:08, LA Walsh wrote: > Ok, did I mention POSIX? Posix != Unix. So what's your point? Cygwin targets POSIX compatability wherever posible. Any discussion about paths that ignores the POSIX standards will need to be reviewed with POSIX in mind. It's easier to do tha

RE: Setup.exe

The core requirements are: win95 ie4 thats all we can assume will be present. Rob -- GPG key available at: . signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

RE: Setup.exe

On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 16:15, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > [snip] > > > You can assume IE4 is present on the system, thats already a requirement > > for setup to operate. > > > > GAH! NOW he tells me! ;-) Heh, you told me! (It's a requirement for the GUI update you implemented). Rob -- GPG key

RE: Repost, different list...File::Spec, cygwin, Syntactic vs. Semantic path analysis

Sorry for butting in again, but you have a factual error that needs highlighting. On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 13:18, linda w (cyg) wrote: > > Understanding that double slashes at the > > beginning of a path are special is good sense for any > > portable program. > --- > There you go again, makin

Re: Setup.exe

Gah. Sorry about the half-backed reply there. On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 04:24, Dave Hooper wrote: > (I believe Windows will by default wait until > setup.exe has exitted before closing the dialup connection) unless > setup.exe gives Windows a hint. I'm almost utterly convinced that a > sequence in se

Re: [Mostly to Charles Wilson] Upgrading Cygwin's CVS

On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 01:08, Jason Tishler wrote: > On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 07:58:48PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: > > Because of all that, I'd pretty much decided that the next time I > > update the 'cvs' package, I'm going to use the cvsnt codebase > > Well, there's always Subversion: > >

RE: Repost, different list...File::Spec, Cygwin, Syntactic vs.Semantic path analysis

On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 20:52, LA Walsh wrote: > Do you think this is proper behavior? Do you think a win32 person being > introduced to posix/gnu utils would find this beneficial? Do you think > a linux person who uses some combination of cygwin and Win utils would find > this beneficial?

RE: Repost, different list...File::Spec, Cygwin, Syntactic vs.Semantic path analysis

On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 19:30, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > Although the win32 api supports both one takes more work as paths > containing forward-slashes are converted to back-slashes*. I know this > is being petty but if different style paths cause problems surely it > would make sense to follow the s

Re: Setup.exe locks up: Clarification

On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 13:45, Paul T. Karch wrote: > This setup.exe version is 2.249.2.5 and I downloaded > it on 5 Jan 2003 from the main Cygwin site. Please try the snapshot from http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots Rob signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: FAO: cfg: defaults

On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 12:33, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 04:24:53PM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote: > >At 08:50 2003-01-04, John Morrison wrote: > >>Please find for you perusal and review... (long links, will wrap!) > > > >Why don't you enclose all URLs in email within angle

Re: File::Spec, Cygwin, Syntactic vs. Semantic path analysis is.

On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 12:27, linda w (cyg) wrote: > A bit late to the party, I know, but wanted to chime in on the Cygwin > File::Spec discussion. I'm 'cc'ing the cygwin list as a "heads up" for any > interested parties. > > A more satisfactory mapping is to base "Cygwin" on Win32, not Unix. > >

Re: Heads up: *possible* bug in cygwin

On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 10:31, Charles Wilson wrote: > 1) valgrind hasn't been ported to cygwin AFAIK. But it was fairly easy > to compile efence, given that helpful folks had previously posted > patches to the list. I've updated them to Bruce's 2.2.2 release, and > will publish them soon. (How

Re: pthread support ... broken in the past .. fixed now?

On Tue, 2002-12-31 at 04:11, H. Henning Schmidt wrote: > I am porting the omniORB CORBA-framework to cygwin. > It makes heavy use of pthreads, I do not see a way to work around that > ... so I need pthreads working in cygwin. > I have found a number of messages in the the mailing-list archives >

Re: Heads up: *possible* bug in cygwin

On Wed, 2003-01-01 at 11:45, Charles Wilson wrote: > [...but I can't reproduce the fault on linux. Even if I link in > dlmalloc. Bleah. ElectricFence on linux couldn't find anything > suspicious either.] You might try valgrind. valgrind is *good*. Happy New Year. Rob -- --- GPG key availa

Re: Burning cygwin distribution CDs

On Mon, 2002-12-30 at 22:08, Laurynas Biveinis wrote: > >>However > >>this is not exactly what I need - I have to burn all the 1GB stuff to > >>CDs. > > > > > > Why? You do realize that that includes multiple versions of just about every > > package? > > Yes, I do. In fact, if I was creating suc

Re: what to use in g++ instead of GetOpt?

On Sun, 2002-12-22 at 13:51, Ed wrote: > Howdy all! > > In the old days of libg++ there was something called GetOpt to help > parse command line options. In these days of stdlibc++ it seems to be > gone. > > What are well-dressed C++ programmers using to parse their command > lines these days? I

Re: [PATCH] exclude runtime-pseudo-reloc symbols from auto-export

On Sun, 2002-12-22 at 04:55, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > Didn't you suggest that anything in a library residing in /usr/lib or > /usr/local/lib be excluded? That's not quite the same thing as what > I was musing about. I was talking about marking individual symbols. Ah, ok. oops. (goes and

Re: [PATCH] exclude runtime-pseudo-reloc symbols from auto-export

On Sat, 2002-12-21 at 15:39, Christopher Faylor wrote: > Maybe the horse has left the barn already but it would have been nice > (tm) if these type of symbols were marked in some generic way so that > we wouldn't have to keep remembering to extend this table. I recall commenting on this aspect in

Re: How did I get it?

On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 23:19, Michael Schaap wrote: > > And this could indeed be a virus or worm. There is at least one that > includes cygwin1.dll: > > http://vil.mcafee.com/dispVirus.asp?virus_k=99529 > > I'd certainly check your PC carefully for viruses, if I were you. I wonder if they in

RE: Individual vs. list-only replies (Was Re: Force bash to startas administrator)

On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 21:18, Pavel Rozenboim wrote: > Does anyone have a suggestion how Outlook can be configured to reply to the > list instead of replying to sender? Uhmm reply-to-all. Or write a macro (and ideally, GPL it :]) . Rob -- --- GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robe

Re: Individual vs. list-only replies (Was Re: Force bash to startas administrator)

On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 13:50, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > But the issue is not only are people who reply busy but so are the > readers. With your software's defaults I get a message in my email AND > see it and have to skip it later when I read the list. Thus it is more > work for me, hence the req

Re: Individual vs. list-only replies (Was Re: Force bash to startas administrator)

On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 11:21, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > Again, I don't appreciate getting email that's a copy of what I'll be > > reading on the list shortly anyway. This needs a note: Emails have a unique message ID, that mail de-dupers can remove. I don't get duplicates, even when something

Re: Latest setup.exe

On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 03:56, Joseph Davida wrote: > I got around the problem by removing the > old C:\cygwin (actually by renaming it > to cygwin.old) and restarting the setup.exe. > > So it appears current setup.exe will cause this > problem on Win2K if it installs on top of an > exsisting insta

RE: setup troubles: Download incomplete

On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 20:57, Kris Thielemans wrote: > well, I did have multiple copies of the same file. I've been using 3 > mirrors. In the list of mirrors, did you ctrl-click to select the 3, or did you single click, thus choosing a single, different mirror. Setup only prevents duplicates wh

Re: [FAQ?] Re: [Mingw-users] Cygwin Full download in onebig archive ?

On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 11:09, Charles Wilson wrote: > Sortof. I assumed a priori that a 557MB tarball is a bad idea. Yep. And the original poster, was asserting that such a tarball is a good idea. Thus my figures to show that it ain't - for the common case. > I was not, in any way, suggesting

Re: [FAQ?] Re: [Mingw-users] Cygwin Full download in one bigarchive ?

On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 10:30, Charles Wilson wrote: > > > Seems pretty clear to me, that for anyone on a slow link, or anyone > > charged by volume, that the modular install is much more efficient. > > Faulty analogy. Most users would probably only download the monolithic > tarball once, for the

RE: [Mingw-users] Cygwin Full download in one big archive ?

On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 01:39, Richard Campbell wrote: > >Impractical. As I said, almost 100% of people won't want 100% of packages. > > It might be interesting to poll in some way, considering how often this > comes up. I suspect more than "almost 0%" might want a 1-button, > overnight-style ins

RE: rebase-0.4 patch

On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 19:43, Ralf Habacker wrote: > BTW: What means FWICT, I haven't found an explanation of this in google. >From What I Can Tell. -- --- GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt. --- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message par

RE: rebase-0.4 patch

On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 19:50, Ralf Habacker wrote: > astyle --gnu does not work. It must be astyle --style=gnu. > > What about spaces and tabs. Tabs would make big files smaller as using tabs, but > the problem is with the indention, which isn't equal for all users and all > editors. For example I

Re: strtof is missing

On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 20:34, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Removing the symbol might > break these applications (though I assume there aren't that much apps > using strtodf). We can just export it twice from cygwin.din. That + Jeff's patch will keep backwards compatability and provide the right API

RE: rebase-0.4 patch

On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 19:15, Ralf Habacker wrote: > > 3. reformat via indent > > Which indent command line you will use. I can do it before, do simplifiy > applying backward to the kde-cygwin archive. Just 'indent'. However for C++, astyle --gnu does a better job of meeting the GNU standard

Re: pthread_mutex_trylock does not lock

On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 10:52, Christophe Galerne wrote: > Robert Collins wrote: > > > > I never said that PTHREAD_MUTEX_NORMAL does not block, I was challenging > > the apparent 'cygwin threads' documentation. > > Right, in a way my remarq was OT... =:-D O

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >