> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Beach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 2:16 AM
> >
> > thread - lock
> > thread - state=run
> > thread - signal
> > main - lock
> > main - test state (passes)
>
> calls pthread_cond_wait().
Doh. I need some real serious sle
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Beach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 12:21 AM
> Thanks for taking the time to look at this issue, but I must
> disagree that
> this is the problem.
You're going to have to debug this yourself. I've given you my opinio
Ok, well we had 3 'I use it's', and 2 'I don't', and something thousand
'I don't or I do but am too apathetic to reply :]'.
So it's gone. If you have a corrupt file it will be detected during
download and/or before installation.
Rob
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 10:56 PM
> Yes - it did, and the install worked fine. After this my
> /etc/setup/timestamp now contains 1016041807, and setup no
> longer shows the warning re out-of-date setup.ini.
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher January [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 10:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 1.1.3 and upwards: apparent bug with
> pthread_cond_wait() and/or signal()
>
>
> > Between 1.1.3 and 1.3.0 a huge change occurre
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Beach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 9:44 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: 1.1.3 and upwards: apparent bug with
> pthread_cond_wait() and/or signal()
>
>
> Hi all, I've just been wrestling with some code I've been
> -Original Message-
> From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 10:12 PM
> When I try "install from local directory" and select the
> defaults (ie install everything which has been updated) setup
> gets as far as showing the install progress box,
I've uploaded a new version of setup.exe, and source, to
http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/setup-md5-20020501.exe and
http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/setup-md5-20020501-src.tar.bz2.
New features:
* Allows source only packages.
* Checks md5 sums if present in setup.ini
* NEVER redownloa
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Watford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 5:10 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Setup configuration files specific to an installation.
>
>
> "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PR
> -Original Message-
> From: Wu Yongwei [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:39 PM
> The new user interface has problems too on Chinese Windows.
> Since you do not have the environment I do not expect to see
> it fixed soon (I am not good at interfaces). I on
> Original Message
> Subject: Re[2]: 'redownload' aka download again and cygwin setup
> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:04:07 +0200
> From: Marco Müllers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Marco Müllers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organization: Marco Müllers
> To: Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTE
> -Original Message-
> From: Gianni Mariani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Not to alarm anyone - but possible virus on
> http://cygwin.com/setup.exe
>
>
>
> I have some reasons to suspect that http://cygwin.com/s
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam Edge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:18 PM
> Or am I missing something? ("Again" do I hear from the
> chorus? Kindly leave the auditorium, sir!) ;-)
As you may know, you can use the md5sum files to verify what was
downloa
> -Original Message-
> From: Max Bowsher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:13 PM
> i.e. they will not want [prev] packages once the superceding
> [curr] package has proved itself.
And how do you test that?
> Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but sur
===
- Original Message -
From: "Max Bowsher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Nooo! I used that to download stuff that I don't want installed.
You will still be able to do that. I'm talking about removing
'REdownload". DOWNLOAD will stay.
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info:
- Original Message -
From: "Sam Edge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > A 'normal' install - download and install - works fine, no problems.
>
> Read my and Christopher Faylor's posts especially
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> where we explain where for some
> people download and inst
===
- Original Message -
From: "Earnie Boyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: 'redownload' aka do
===
- Original Message -
From: "Cliff Hones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Now Sam Edge is taking the same path. Good luck.
>
> What would happen if someone did produce a version of setup identical
> to the current, except for the removal of redownload? Would it
> be
Ok. Time for a straw poll.
Please write back (to me or the list, your choice) whether you use the
DELIBERATE 'download again' functionality of setup.exe or not.
And if so, how often and for what purpose.
This is to determine if certain functionality that -in essence- causes
the 'accidental' redo
===
- Original Message -
From: "Max Bowsher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But setup.exe has operated in the correct way in the past! Why write a
new tool,
> when fixing a bug in the current one would do all that needs to be
done?
Because the current tool is more complex
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:30 AM
> However, I think I may have been responsible for setup's
> current behavior of basing what is downloaded on what is
> installed. Even if I was not, though, I think tha
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 3:07 PM
> >That's what the discussion has been about for the last week or so.
> >After lots of requests for this functionality, the position
> eventually
> >hardened to "it's no
Kurt,
you've jumped in half way through a discussion. I've addressed
every point you made, as have other people, in various emails in this
list over the last few months.
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.h
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam Edge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 9:32 PM
> > So use a mirroring tool! Setup.exe is -not- designed for this.
>
> Surely if setup.exe isn't designed with at least a nod to
> this way of working why does it have "download fr
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam Edge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 8:17 PM
> Every version of setup.exe I've used exhibits this annoying
> behaviour but them I'm new here.
>
> I agree with Daniele. I install different subsets of the
> packages on several
Jason,
the files that don't link being rebound... do they have INT's
(Import Name Tables?) that are fully valid (no auto-import tricks etc
etc)?
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 11:47 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Required packages for the compiler only
>
>
> A project I am working on requires that I use the Cygwin compiler
> since it is a cros
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexei Lioubimov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 12:32 AM
> To: Robert Collins; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
> Subject: Re: setup 2.194.2.24: Bug (?) in downloading from internet
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexei Lioubimov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 11:44 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
> Subject: Re: setup 2.194.2.24: Bug (?) in downloading from internet
>
>
> Hello Larry,
> I know, that this problem
> -Original Message-
> From: Rainer Lehrig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 10:57 PM
>
> So what do you think about something like CYGWIN for OpenVMS ?
Sure, it's always nice to be able to use familiar tools and the gnu
toolchain on multiple platforms.
> I
This is an email for the archives...
The location of the cygwin 'setup.exe' aka cinstall sources, has moved.
The old location was /cvs/src/winsup/cinstall, the new location is
/cvs/cygwin-apps/setup.
The HEAD branch will be fixed shortly to compile outside the winsup
tree. The setup200202 and o
> -Original Message-
> From: B. Joshua Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 11:25 AM
> To: cygwin
> Subject: Case insensitivity
>
>
> I'm in the process of porting my CAE tool (hdlmaker) to
> Cygwin and I've run into a problem with case sensitivity, or
>
> -Original Message-
> From: René Møller Fonseca [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 8:06 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: pthread_t and strict standards compliance
>
>
> Hi Heribert,
>
> Of course, you are right. But I'm interested in the most correc
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael F. March [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 4:02 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Getting Cygwin into a corporation..
>
>
> In the company I work for they have outlawed all Unix
> variants (Linux, Solaris, OSX) from ce
this belongs here.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremy Beard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 11:54 PM
> To: Robert Collins
> Subject: RE: setup program problem
>
>
> it is simply a common feature to inform a user in a download
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremy Beard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:50 PM
> There is no reference made to how large the
> packages are in terms of file size.
This is because (most) folk don't select packages based on size, but
rather on content - w
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Troy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 6:25 AM
> In doing this compliation and write up a lot of questions yet
> remain for
> me. There are just a whole lot of loose ends. It's my casual
> observation
> that the emails in
In the spirit of asking smart questions, comes
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html - referenced
recently on the automake list.
Well worth a read.
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documenta
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael D. Crawford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 6:24 PM
>
> Usually throwing a pointer is not what you really want to do,
> but it shouldn't
> cause a crash.
Is it worth putting this up as a bug on the gcc bugs database?
R
> -Original Message-
> From: Danny Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 6:11 PM
>
> Robert wrote:
> >
> > I don't know if this is a cygwin issue or if I am doing something
> > fundamentally wrong...
> >
>
> You threw const char*
Sigh. Blush. I should have
I don't know if this is a cygwin issue or if I am doing something
fundamentally wrong...
int
main (int argc, char **argv)
{
try
{
throw "catch this";
}
catch (char *message)
{
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
coredumps on me. Throwing int's works fine. Throwing (string)
Did gcc use to be able to be grabbed as part of the src/ CVS tree? I'm
working on getting a mingw libstdc++ and libgcc built during the
all-in-one process (mainly for setup), and I want to be as close to what
an end user would get as possible.
Or do I just grab the gcc 2.95.3-5 sources and put th
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael A Chase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 2:28 AM
> "Download from Internet" shouldn't care in the least whether
> there is a Cygwin installation present or not. It should
> only care about the files in the local director
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 4:50 AM
> What if you didn't install cygwin on C: ? It is not a
> requirement, is it? I have suspected my not installing it on
> C: may be the source of some things being broken, an
> -Original Message-
> From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 9:14 PM
> The problem seems to be that setup doesn't set these
> already-present packages to 'keep' or 'skip' by default, and
> there's no way for the user to find out which packages a
> -Original Message-
> From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 7:16 PM
> I was pleasantly
> surprised how easy this was (once I realised the setup200202
> branch was needed), and after adding some diagnostics have so
> far found that the check_fo
> -Original Message-
> From: hugo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 4:32 PM
>
> Hi Robert
>
> Thanks for your reply. However, I do not want to compile from
> source - there is no need for that. All I would like to do is
> include XFree86, Tk800.23.1 and Tk:Fi
> -Original Message-
> From: hugo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> setup.exe script: I cannot customize it as it is binary code.
On this page (http://cygwin.com/lists.html) the location of the source
is documented.
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> -Original Message-
> From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 11:55 PM
> It seems then that the buggy behaviour is present on W9X NT and W2K
but not XP. Since the majority of Cygwin users do not
> use XP (yet) I'd suggest that it would be a good i
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam Edge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 8:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Is Cygwin legal under Windows XP?
>
>
> You wrote in <3CC24897.10238.884BE175@localhost>
> in gmane.os.cygwin on Sun, 21 Apr 2002 05:05:27 -05
> -Original Message-
> From: Gerrit P. Haase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 6:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24
>
>
> Hallo Robert,
>
> > And I *stil* cannot reproduce it. Setup detects the local
> files *every
> > s
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 10:16 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 09:31:02AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
&g
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Troy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 3:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: The Server Daemon
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> So, I'm trying to get started with implementing the honoring
> of the suid bit by cygwin. I've downlo
Theres a bug in the cinstall directory which I will be resolving
shortly. For now, you can ignore that directories failure.
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.htm
> -Original Message-
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 4:14 AM
> (*) has anybody ported GnuPG to cygwin? Would you mind supporting it
> and adding it to the cygwin dist?
If someone has ported it to mingw, that would be even better
http://cygwin.com/cvs.html
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
> -Original Message-
> From: George Hester [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 4:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: I am not going to let Cygwin BSOD my Windows 2000 Server
Consider this: A BSOD is equivalent to a unix kernel panic - usermode
software shou
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris January [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:07 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Copy-on-write fork
>
>
> This is mainly a question aimed at Christopher Faylor, but
> maybe someone else knows the answer. My question is
> -Original Message-
> From: Schwartz, Barry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:30 PM
> To: 'Chris Ellsworth'; Schwartz, Barry; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Why did you guys break EVERYTHING...
>
>
> OK. Feeling better now... If one of my customers wro
> -Original Message-
> From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 9:10 AM
> Since noone acknowledged it was a bug I've been assuming it was a
(rather strange to me) design feature.
Actually, I acknowledged it as a bug, but one I couldn't repeat until
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 8:02 AM
> >> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:41:04 +0100 Alan Hourihane
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think this is because you
> >>haven't installed the packages yet. I think setup
Without ANY example of what you are calling, there is NO way that
assistance can be provided.
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http:/
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence W. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 3:19 AM
> Not entirely true sometimes it improves sometimes it meanders
> down a blind alley or two
granted.
> It's free software as a nobody user I accept its oddities and
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 5:38 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:28:19AM -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> >I think to generalize, the
Setup create the .lnk style symbolic shortcuts based on the tar file
contents. Nothing is brojen, nothing needs changing, norton is making
assumptions.
If it is of enough concern, the tar file creator could alter their
symlinks before they create the tarball to reference the .exe's instead.
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Labhard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 10:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: pthread_cond_wait does not relock mutex on release
>
>
> Robert and Gerald:
>
> Both quite right. Although adding the SA
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Labhard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 5:01 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: pthread_cond_wait does not relock mutex on release
>
>
> Don't no if anyone else has noticed this: the
> pthread_cond_wait when signal
> -Original Message-
> From: Westley Weimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 1:50 PM
> I am willing to have "hello.exe" be fairly large, but
> shipping all of cygwin1.dll (700K) is not allowed. If this
> were linux I would pull all of the .o files out of c
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Aston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 6:30 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] gettimeofday time travels
>
>
>
> cgf writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 09:58:48PM +0100, Philip Aston
> wrote: > >How abo
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris January [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 7:48 PM
> Hmm - I wonder why those values were made absolute though.
I don't think the SUS designers thought of suspending machines :}.
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.co
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris January [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> There is a similar problem here with timeouts passed to
> WaitForSingleObjectEx, and WaitForMultipleObjectsEx. I was
> thinking of generating a patch that does a single retry when
> a Wait* times out. Is the con
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Starr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 1:21 PM
> To: Robert Collins
> Subject: RE: New directories for each mirror
>
>
> I liked the old behavior better.
That's nice.
Rob
--
Unsubscribe in
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Starr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 1:19 PM
> To: Robert Collins
> Subject: RE: New directories for each mirror
>
>
> Now I have 4 folders, one for each mirror I chose.
Yes. And setup will try
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Starr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 1:08 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: New directories for each mirror
>
>
> I recently changed from setup version 2.125.2.10 to
> 2.194.2.24. Now, whenever I download from a mirror,
> -Original Message-
> From: Rick Rankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 7:24 AM
> That's pretty weird. I've tried a couple more times, once
> after renaming my existing setup.exe, but I still get
> 2.194.2.22. It must be cached somewhere between me and
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Herbert Valerio Riedel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 7:17 PM
> >4) mention the availability of the source code for libraries
> > used to create their windows port somewhere on their
> > webpage (not strictly neces
Using g++ -shared to build a C++ dll, it failed to link with a number of
missing symbols. Adding -lstdc++ to the link line fixed this. The
interesting point is that the static build worked fine.
I presume the correct solution is either a dllised libstdc++, or a specs
file tweak.
I'm not a g++ sp
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Howe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 8:37 PM
> > Since I can't see any reason for the error, I assume that
> the source
> > has been locally modified or the header files are screwed up.
> None of these. Why don't you try y
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 5:10 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: setup.exe v.2.194.2.24 : tetex-beta-20001218-4
>
>
> Either it's the new setup.exe v.2.194.2.24, or some glitch i
Setup 2.194.2.24 has been uploaded to the usual place. It contains Pavel
Tsekov's patch, so should correct the recently reported crashing.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http
I've checked the patch in. A new setup.exe will be uploaded when the
build completes.
Thanks again to Pavel for tracking these 'oversights' :} down!
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 1:49 AM
> To: Eric Hanchrow
> C
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Dobkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 6:25 AM
>
> Has anyone developed a mechanism to notify and automatically
> update Cygwin packages on deployed systems?
AFA I am aware, no.
> I've searched
> the list and haven't see
> -Original Message-
> From: Randall R Schulz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 12:45 AM
> Does that
> break even more things?
IIRC, Yes.
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.h
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris January [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 9:54 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: is it impossible to use 2000-like command.com on 98?
>
>
> > I use win98.
> > I just wanna use cmd.exe like bash shell not
> > command
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris January [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 9:57 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: REPOST: unlink semantics
>
>
> With respect to the 'Infinte Loop in "rm -fr"' thread, I
> believe the current semantics of unlink on Cygw
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 2:24 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ps command - revisited
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:03:15PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
&g
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Dobkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:59 PM
> Similarly,
> the System process should be identified as such instead of unknown.
What is the 'System process'?
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsub
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Watford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 10:58 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Setup configuration files specific to an installation.
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Using setup.exe, what files (if any) are generated during the
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Brondsema [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 3:23 PM
>
> Any help here would be greatly appreciated.
Cygwin has pthreads and/or Win32threads as available threading models.
Check the configure.in test and config.log to see why it
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 9:12 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: fastcall for gcc
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:08:28AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 9:07 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: fastcall for gcc
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:01:18AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> >would you
Chris,
would you accept a patch to give cygwin gcc FASTCALL support?
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
> -Original Message-
> From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 12:07 AM
Thanks for the feedback.. I'll have a look in the logs tomorrow.
> [I've already mentioned I'm not happy with the current
> download mode - I think it loses a lot of its potent
> -Original Message-
> From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 7:03 PM
> Never say never? Suppose a showstopper bug is found in a
> released package - say one which could result in filestore or
> configuration corruption. The quickest solution
Redirect this to cygwin-apps please folk.
> -Original Message-
> From: David A. Cobb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 1:59 AM
> > TODO
> > [..]
> > * Don't downgrade if the curr version is <= installed?
> >
> >Btw, this should apply to test too, I think.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 12:20 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ncftp current release won't run - missing
> CYGREADLINE5.DLL
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 11:57:
> -Original Message-
> From: Karl Chen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 11:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Question on the new behavior of setup.exe
>
>
>
> I had the same problem with the 2.194 setup.exe, not on a
> network share, but now I can
> -Original Message-
> From: Christoph Kukulies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 12:20 AM
> I recently upgraded from the b20 full.exe setup mechanism to
> the newer b20.1 setup.exe. BTW, it looks like a centura team
> developer application or where does thi
> -Original Message-
> From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 9:04 PM
> RC> There is a policy setting - prevent logons with blank passwords
> RC> except for console users. You could try flipping that and
> see what
> RC> happens.
>
>
> Well, I
> -Original Message-
> From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 7:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: WinXP users without password and cygwin_logon_user
>
>
> Hello, there! :)
>
> I want to raise this issue again... In short
> on my WinXP Home
501 - 600 of 988 matches
Mail list logo
