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
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
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 02:06:27PM -0400, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
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
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
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
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 12:23:09PM -0700, 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
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 03:50:16PM -0400, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
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
On 14 May 2007 20:23, Alexander Sotirov wrote:
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
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
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
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
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.
(And this is a serious question: If it comes
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
Alexander Sotirov wrote on Monday, May 14, 2007 3:23 PM:
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
On 05/14/2007, Markus E.L. wrote:
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
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
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.
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.
(like: cygwin.com lists the mirrors as source of the
software, then declines any responsibility for the actual content
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.
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
Markus E.L. wrote:
Buchbinder,Barry(NIH/NIAID)[E] writes:
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?
For sanity's sake, please stop this thread
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
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
Alexander Sotirov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cygwin mirrors have in their toplevel a setup.exe and an md5.sum. The
m5sum is
ae1944f528338033bab3b4710d5bd736 setup.bz2
b31ddcef84f25919a5d3184167b4a90d setup.exe
0503889504b7ff0b23e65586a522b3ad setup.ini
On 12 May 2007 09:54, ls-cygwin-2006 wrote:
b31ddcef84f25919a5d3184167b4a90d setup.exe
whereas the setup.exe has actually the md5sum:
fbc848393ed05ef4f51a253f75bcafeb
--- mirror-set.txt 2007-05-12 10:18:58.688913700 +0100
+++ orig-set.txt2007-05-12 10:19:07.564595300
Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 12 May 2007 09:54, ls-cygwin-2006 wrote:
b31ddcef84f25919a5d3184167b4a90d setup.exe
whereas the setup.exe has actually the md5sum:
fbc848393ed05ef4f51a253f75bcafeb
--- mirror-set.txt 2007-05-12 10:18:58.688913700 +0100
+++
[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
Some hours ago I noticed something strange:
Cygwin mirrors have in their toplevel a setup.exe and an md5.sum. The
m5sum is
ae1944f528338033bab3b4710d5bd736 setup.bz2
b31ddcef84f25919a5d3184167b4a90d setup.exe
0503889504b7ff0b23e65586a522b3ad setup.ini
whereas the setup.exe has
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cygwin mirrors have in their toplevel a setup.exe and an md5.sum. The
m5sum is
ae1944f528338033bab3b4710d5bd736 setup.bz2
b31ddcef84f25919a5d3184167b4a90d setup.exe
0503889504b7ff0b23e65586a522b3ad setup.ini
whereas the setup.exe has actually the md5sum:
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 12:58:59PM -0700, Alexander Sotirov wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cygwin mirrors have in their toplevel a setup.exe and an md5.sum. The
m5sum is
ae1944f528338033bab3b4710d5bd736 setup.bz2
b31ddcef84f25919a5d3184167b4a90d setup.exe
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 12:58:59PM -0700, Alexander Sotirov wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cygwin mirrors have in their toplevel a setup.exe and an md5.sum. The
m5sum is
ae1944f528338033bab3b4710d5bd736 setup.bz2
b31ddcef84f25919a5d3184167b4a90d setup.exe
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Nobody seemed to care. Considering the fact that MD5 collisions are now
trivial
to generate, it probably doesn't matter much anyways - the fact that your
copy
of setup.exe has the right MD5 doesn't mean that it hasn't been tampered
with.
We don't control the
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:42:33PM -0700, Alexander Sotirov wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Nobody seemed to care. Considering the fact that MD5 collisions are
now trivial to generate, it probably doesn't matter much anyways - the
fact that your copy of setup.exe has the right MD5 doesn't mean
33 matches
Mail list logo
