From: Igor Pechtchanski
I would like to hear opinions on how useful a java-wrappers package would
be. The package will contain a few shell scripts that allow users to
invoke the regular Java SDK tools (java, javac, javadoc) from Cygwin,
making them look like their Unix counterparts (i.e.,
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 10:27:17AM +0100, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
So, yeah .. can someone please submit this package into cygwin =) ..
i was surprised that dictd wasn't included yet - it's extremely useful
I vote pro this package anyway. Would like to review it further.
Where is a download?
Lapo wrote:
Daniel Reed wrote:
| Package: ccrypt 1.6-2 [2004-01-20]
| Description: A utility for encrypting and decrypting files and streams
|Proposer: Andreas Seidl
|Proposal: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-01/msg00112.html
|Release directory (for use with setup.exe):
Hallo Christopher,
Am Sonntag, 22. Februar 2004 um 18:31 schriebst du:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 10:27:17AM +0100, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
So, yeah .. can someone please submit this package into cygwin =) ..
i was surprised that dictd wasn't included yet - it's extremely useful
I vote pro this
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Here's a variant of the above that works with spaces in filenames (but
doesn't delete directories that contain only empty directories):
find $ROOT -depth -type d -empty -print0 |xargs -0 rmdir -f
However, does anyone care to submit a patch to the generic-build-script?
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:39:49PM +0100, Andreas Seidl wrote:
However, a new problem might have popped up. Reading this thread
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg01103.html
I wonder if there are legal problems for RedHat to distribute the ccrypt
package?
You're right. There are.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Rafael Kitover wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Igor Pechtchanski
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: Pending patches for generic build script
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Charles Wilson wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
false || true
As a
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Andreas Seidl wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Here's a variant of the above that works with spaces in filenames (but
doesn't delete directories that contain only empty directories):
find $ROOT -depth -type d -empty -print0 |xargs -0 rmdir -f
However, does anyone
lapo wrote:
Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote:
The author returned from a coma and it got a new home -
http://libungif.sourceforge.net/ . 4.1.1 was released some days
ago.
Thanks, i'll have time to take a look at it (and package it) probably in
the beginning of next week ^_^
Speaking of which, I'm
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 03:55:51PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
lapo wrote:
Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote:
The author returned from a coma and it got a new home -
http://libungif.sourceforge.net/ . 4.1.1 was released some days
ago.
Thanks, i'll have time to take a look at it
cgf wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:39:49PM +0100, Andreas Seidl wrote:
However, a new problem might have popped up. Reading this thread
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg01103.html
I wonder if there are legal problems for RedHat to distribute the ccrypt
package?
Andreas,
Next
pechtcha wrote:
Hi, all,
I would like to hear opinions on how useful a java-wrappers package would
be. The package will contain a few shell scripts that allow users to
invoke the regular Java SDK tools (java, javac, javadoc) from Cygwin,
making them look like their Unix counterparts (i.e.,
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 04:27:06PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
cgf wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:39:49PM +0100, Andreas Seidl wrote:
However, a new problem might have popped up. Reading this thread
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg01103.html
I wonder if there are legal problems
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
pechtcha wrote:
Hi, all,
I would like to hear opinions on how useful a java-wrappers package would
be. The package will contain a few shell scripts that allow users to
invoke the regular Java SDK tools (java, javac, javadoc) from Cygwin,
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 05:03:16PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
FWIW, since these scripts are going to be Cygwin-specific, perhaps CGF
might even consider hosting a CVS repository for them on cygwin-apps, so
that others can send in patches against the development version...
Feel free to check
cgf wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 04:27:06PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
cgf wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:39:49PM +0100, Andreas Seidl wrote:
However, a new problem might have popped up. Reading this thread
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg01103.html
I wonder if there are
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 05:53:47PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
cgf wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 04:27:06PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
cgf wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:39:49PM +0100, Andreas Seidl wrote:
However, a new problem might have popped up. Reading this thread
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 05:03:16PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
FWIW, since these scripts are going to be Cygwin-specific, perhaps CGF
might even consider hosting a CVS repository for them on cygwin-apps, so
that others can send in patches
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 06:38:11PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 05:53:47PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
By his standard, RedHat has been breaking the law for years now, which
leads me to conclude that either:
A)The authorities don't care.
B)Red Hat doesn't care.
Let me preface this by saying that I am not going to make a crass
decision that creates a mess in the package list.
Due to the reality of what Cygwin/X is as well as to recent events in
the X community, I wish to rename the packages for Cygwin/X upon the
next major release. Here is a brief
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 05:53:47PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
cgf wrote:
I'm sure you wouldn't enjoy it if Red Hat was taken to task for
something that could have been caught early, decided that cygwin wasn't
worth the hassle, and pulled it
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 06:38:11PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 05:53:47PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
By his standard, RedHat has been breaking the law for years now, which
leads me to conclude that either:
XFree86-lib-compat (provides old 4.2.0 libraries for compatibility with
applications that have not been recompiled in almost a year) has been
removed as a dependency of XFree86-base.
This means that XFree86-lib-compat will no longer be installed in a
default Cygwin/X installation.
If you
No, I wouldn't, but I didn't intend on that being the only statement.
Consider this: The gpg which we distribute contains the *exact* same
cipher, AES{128,192,256}, as ccrypt plus gpg also has twofish
blowfish.
The last time I checked, those two were also considered
strong encryption
24 matches
Mail list logo
