-Original Message-
From: Danny Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 8:29 AM
In order to get it into official sources, the ReactOS team
will need some support.
What sort of support can we offer? I'm happy to vouch that 'it works for
me'. We've been round
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 11:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: fastcall
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 08:54:00AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
Chris asked the question a while ago: Wanna be a binutils
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 12:57 PM
Maybe I should create a user on sourceware called Daniel G.
Collins who can approve binutils patches. :-)
If you drop the G, I'll write my half-brother and see if he's
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.
I agree.
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 4:20 PM
I'm not sure how. If you're talking about my suggestion, if
you switched to a test view and installed things, the next
time you ran setup you'd still default to
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 7:25 AM
Anyway, I'll be implementing this in the next couple of days.
This is just a heads up. This means that special generate
info file logic can safely be removed from
-Original Message-
From: Robert Collins
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 1:11 AM
To: Ton van Overbeek; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Patch for Setup.exe problem and for mklink2.cc
-Original Message-
From: Ton van
Can we remove more from base?
If we really really really really need a pager that always installs
(which is a different conversation, and one I thought we had had),
surely it should be the best one we have?
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 8:42 PM
To: Robert Collins
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re[2]: Patch for Setup.exe problem and for mklink2.cc
Hello Robert,
Friday, March 29, 2002, 10:25:08 AM, you wrote
-Original Message-
From: Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 9:01 PM
To: Cygwin-Apps
Subject: Re: more and base
Subject: more and base
Can we remove more from base?
More is what? 3k? I'd love to have had it in the base install
when I
-Original Message-
From: Stanislav Sinyagin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:13 AM
To: Robert Collins; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: setup.exe gui testing
--- Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's supposed to let folk - like me - who want
-Original Message-
From: Ton van Overbeek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 8:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: setup.exe problem
Jonas Eriksson wrote:
When I try to install Cygwin with the latest setup.exe
(2.194.2.21)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gary R Van Sickle
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 4:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Patch for Setup.exe problem and for mklink2.cc
[snip]
Found the problem causing the segment
-Original Message-
From: David A. Cobb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 4:04 AM
A thought: mandate that every package tarball contain a
standard-named
install script - similar in concept to the Micro$quash
setup.inf. Then
simply keeping the old
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 4:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: setup.exe gui testing
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 07:29:56AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
Ok, folks, proof is in the experimentation
Just a note:
I've moved mklink2.c to a .cc file to bypass the 'not a
prototype' error that folk with recent w32api installs may have seen.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 11:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: prev/curr/test
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 07:27:57PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
You don't. You find some other method
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 12:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: prev/curr/test
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:01:11AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
cgf wrote:
Ok. So, this is recent
I think we've done it. So Chuck, feel free to break everyone who's
lagging behind :}..
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 3:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: setup all ok now
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:15:53PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
I think we've done
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 3:40 PM
It's an interesting idea but I don't like glumping what used
to be prev/curr/test with the concept of packages or meta
packages. You lose some functionality that
Hi Keith,
I hope I haven't stolen your thunder, but I've checked into HEAD
the framework for command line options for setup. I've not used what you
put together, because it was too procedural.
Instead, we have:
GetOption - a singleton class that abstracts the getopt() mechanics.
Each
Sigh. Well I'm nearly back on deck. (Long story).
I'll look into this today, I hope.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 3:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: setup.exe problem [[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: no exec
Holdoff please Chuck,
cgf's forwarded post here indicates that there is still at least
one serious bug in 2.194...
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 8:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Now that the new
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 5:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: prev/curr/test
I think I've seen the light.
...
I think that Robert is right that if you click on test you
should only get
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 11:21 AM
Hmm. I think that unclicking bin should uninstall - leaving it there
would be counter-intuititive.
If you have the word install next to a box, I don't think it
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 11:25 AM
I'm actually in the position of being a pretty normal cygwin
user right now. No time, just amazingly good ideas. I'll
try to generate the appropriate resentment if
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 12:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: prev/curr/test
And when you just don't want a package? What do you click to
get the equivalent of skip?
Don't click either?
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 8:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Keeping base, adding standard.
Now that we have clickable categories, I think we should
consider not making Base the default
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 8:10 AM
The rationale is that people can still select a minimal
install with base but still choose a usable setup with Standard.
How does this sound?
Oh, and the concept of
-Original Message-
From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 11:03 AM
strcpy (dp, dots);
delete[] dots;
key = String (dp);
LOOK HERE - This is not right - we should delete at the base
of the block, not somewhere in the middle of it.
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 4:21 PM
This comes back to what I said some time ago - that categories are
necessary but not sufficient to provide a good user experience.
Yadda, yadda. I've said it all
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 5:00 PM
I'm in a rush, so I'll read the rest later...
The one missing thing however, is that I'd like setup.exe to
auto-select the Standard package. There's no automatic way
I'd already done a reinstall... can someone here validate Michael's
script? (someone that tried the beta and has not reinstall those
packages..)
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Michael A Chase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 7:32 AM
To: Robert Collins
Cc
-Original Message-
From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:04 PM
To: Robert Collins
Cc: Michael A Chase; CygWin-Apps
Subject: Re[2]: release setup now?
Hello Robert,
Thursday, March 21, 2002, 10:07:38 AM, you wrote:
RC I'd
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Daniel Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 1:19 AM
No. But man should depend on less IMO. And that will suck less in
automatically.
Doesn't it already? And if I get 'more' put together, can
that be in base?
At
-Original Message-
From: Lapo Luchini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 11:28 PM
To: CygWin
Subject: [RFE] new setup
I think reinstall should check for dependencies and
re-install them, if they were removed.. well the best would
be a warning of
Thanks David, that should help.
-Original Message-
From: David Starks-Browning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: why w32api-1.2-1 is broken in setup 2.194.2.15
I think I know why w32api-1.2-1 is broken in setup
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 12:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: why w32api-1.2-1 is broken in setup 2.194.2.15
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 04:59:06PM -0800, Michael A Chase wrote:
I've installed all
Looks fine to me.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 6:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: TCP Wrappers
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 02:18:38PM -0500, Prentis Brooks wrote:
Hey Chris,
I didn't see any
Yes.
-Original Message-
From: Gary R. Van Sickle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 3:30 PM
To: Cygwin-Apps
Subject: Rob: OK to begin chooser integration?
Rob,
Alright if I start on bringing the chooser window into the
wizard as another page, now
that's also not a good criterion.
As for the licence, they must be open source, but that's all.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Stanislav Sinyagin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:46 PM
To: Robert Collins
Subject: RE: RFP: NASM
I've built nasm from
I will check this tonight.
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 5:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: /usr/lib/w32api problem in setup.exe needs immediate
investigation
Is anyone investigating the problem
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 5:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Any way to uninstall in new setup.exe?
I'd like to remove 'diff' in favor of a new 'diffutils'?
Is there any way to do that without
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Daniel Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 2:12 PM
1. Can the less package be put into base? It really does
seem essential.
No. But man should depend on less IMO. And that will suck less in
automatically.
ROb
Thanks.
Do they have cygwin versions? Are they interested in having it available
via setup.exe?
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RFP: NASM
I kinda thought the people at nasm.2y.net
appears to be in a lib category, not libs.
Rob
Thanks Michael - do you want to put that somewhere on the web (it could
be at www.cygwin.com), and we can advise the cygwin crowd that
tested... that they should run this?
Cheers,
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: release setup now?
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 02:38:51PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
Thanks Michael - do you want to put
-Original Message-
From: Hack Kampbjørn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ssh Keychain?
Robert Collins wrote:
Someone mentioned this a while back... did anything come of that?
That would be me
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:24 PM
I don't see any reason to delay adopting XFree86 into the
main setup. So, lets not worry about customizing anything or
offering alternate setup.ini's.
I don't see
-Original Message-
From: Stephano Mariani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 9:44 PM
To: Robert Collins; 'Charles Wilson'
Cc: 'CygWin-Apps'
Subject: RE: libtool devel auto-import broken
Isn't it better to have this functionality within libtool
-Original Message-
From: Lapo Luchini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:48 PM
But if a cygwin
native version is needed nonetheless I could volunteer to package it.
IMO we should have a fully self-hosted distribution. At the moment, with
the _single_
I can duplicate this (I think). I should have a fix checked in shortly.
Thanks for the report..
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Am I the only one observing this behaviour ?
PT If I go to the chooser window and select Devel-automake I don't see
-Original Message-
From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 12:28 AM
Does UPX come with an API library that you can just use in setup?
That's a nice idea, and on a related note I'm considering compressing
setup.exe with UPX once it's a
-Original Message-
From: egor duda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 12:42 AM
To: Robert Collins
Not that i'm against inclusion of upx to cygwin distro --
it's a normal package like many others after all, but i
really don't understand why somebody
-Original Message-
From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 1:11 AM
To: Robert Collins
Cc: CygWin-Apps
Subject: Re: Setup ready #2
Hello Robert,
Friday, March 15, 2002, 2:01:22 PM, you wrote:
Well, let me report another issue
Yup.. thanks very much for noticing this. It's fixed, and a new snapshot
uploaded (same name though).
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 1:28 AM
To: Robert Collins
Cc: CygWin-Apps
Subject: Re[2]: Setup ready #2
-Original Message-
From: S. Cowles [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 3:39 AM
To: CygWin-Apps
Subject: Re: Setup ready #2
When using the setup-snapshot setup-20020315.exe for install
from local directory, I get multiple Can't open (null) for
Well,
setup200202 has the following remaining key issues:
doesn't detect links for /etc/passwd and /etc/group
overwrites both /etc/passwd and /etc/group if either are missing (or
links)
(new) may have issues on win98SE.
(new) has an unconfirmed issue with local installs.
(new) cannot
-Original Message-
From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Anybody else want to weigh in, here? So far I've got one 'yay' vote
from Robert (but putting pkgconfig into contrib instead of latest).
Fine by me. Any other votes?
'Yay' :}.
Lol.
-Original Message-
From: Jason Tishler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Yes. I think that setup.exe based rebasing should be optional, but
default to on. A flag in rebase.conf to control this would be good,
along with a dialogue box and a tick :]. Not needed for the initial
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
However, I agree that rebasing shouldn't be the default
behavior. In fact, I wonder if I should make cygwin
non-rebaseable. It would load faster if I did that.
Yes, and it would solve some of the nasty
Chris,
This is it, no bugs left AFAIK. How should we move forward?
Rob
===
- Original Message -
From: Michael Schaap [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I did have a quick look at the source, but unfortunately, my low-level
Windows GUI programming skills are insufficient to find the source of
the
problem. ;-(
I think I know where the bug has been introduced. I don't
===
- Original Message -
From: Michael A Chase [EMAIL PROTECTED]
These are probably not the only places where the prefixes may be
missing.
Would it be worthwhile to add a log() call if no file:// or
cygfile://
prefix is found in io_stream::mkpath_p()?
Possibly in your sandbox. I
Jan,
is this fully sorted with the last patch I sent you?
Rob
===
- Original Message -
From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 10:22 AM
Subject: setup.exe /var, /tmp?
Hi,
I've tried a fresh install, using a newly built
- Original Message -
From: Brian Keener [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I catch the drift on the patches and the same with the other two we
discussed. At one point in time when I was still submitting changes
to setup, when I still understood the code before the major rewrite
:-)
It should be a
Thanks - did I miss the original send of these?
I've left the ones I created for you in place as I don't think theres a
huge issue with them, if you think that what you've sent in should get
put into ChangeLog instead, let me know.
Rob
My vote is for this BTW.
Rob
===
- Original Message -
From: Brian Keener [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also cosmetically speaking I think if I am doing an
Install from Local directory and the Source file does not exist I
should not
have and option for the Source to be installed.
This _may_ be fixed.
Rob
===
- Original Message -
From: Jason Tishler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some ideas follow:
Attached is a patch that adds the rebase functionality to setup.exe.
I would like to get some feedback before I start to resolve the
following
issues:
o How to handle a missing config file (i.e.,
===
- Original Message -
From: Michael A Chase [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I did try it yes, whats the problem?
base_files.sh:
if [ ! -f /etc/[profile ]; then
cp -a /etc/profile.default /etc/profile
fi
At some point, an extra '[' attached itself to the front of profile.
Chris, do you
I've uploaded a snapshot with everything found so far in it. If Jan's
issue is resolved, then this is good to go IMO.
Rob
===
- Original Message -
From: Lapo Luchini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I noticed that setup.exe says sources.redhat.com/cygwin/ instead of
cygwin.com... does this means thats that is the preferred canonical
name?
I think that cygwin.com is the preferred name.
Rob
===
- Original Message -
From: Michael A Chase [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No. They are all meant to be used. What could happen is that the
warning
specifies which sites are out of date, and allows the user to turn
the
warning
off in future. Otherwise, I think we will want to eliminate
- Original Message -
From: Brian Keener [EMAIL PROTECTED]
he solution is wrong, but I can't articulate (yet) how the model is
wrong, and so I've followed the (apparent) consensus.
I don't know why that doesn't seem right to you. It appears to me
that I will
never have an
-Original Message-
From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 6:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ITP: pkgconfig
I've got pkgconfig ready for contribution to the cygwin distribution.
Since we're starting to get a few packages that
Please try this patch...
Rob
Index: package_meta.cc
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/winsup/cinstall/package_meta.cc,v
retrieving revision 2.17.2.1
diff -u -p -r2.17.2.1 package_meta.cc
--- package_meta.cc 2002/02/19 03:50:23 2.17.2.1
+++
-Original Message-
From: Gary R. Van Sickle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Feature freeze feature freeze feature freeze ;-)
HEAD is open for business, as per ~ 3 emails back.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Daniel Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Looks like a discussion for cygwin-apps. The only thing I
would be worried
about is if cygutils is NOT installed but some packages use
mkshortcut as
part of their post-install script. Wasn't there some
Ok, final feedback and bug-killing time folk.
A big thanks to Michael, Jason, Pavel, Gary, and everyone else who has
helped make this latest incarnation of setup.exe the best yet.
Chuck, your fix is in there :}.
Chris, thank you for humouring me with regards to that... 300 line
changelogs tend
===
- Original Message -
From: Brian Keener [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert Collins wrote:
Ok, final feedback and bug-killing time folk.
The other couple of things I've noticed are probably open for
preference so I
will throw them out for general consensus:
1) If I have a group
===
- Original Message -
From: Brian Keener [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: Setup
Robert Collins wrote:
Ok, final feedback and bug-killing time folk.
I just built from CVS and the big thing I noticed in the past
===
- Original Message -
From: Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've found the cause, and stopped the silent failure (fix is in
setup200202). I'm working on correcting the behaviour now.
And a complete fix is in CVS now.
Rob
===
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: Setup
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:27:26PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
If the question is Should 'upset' add a dummy Test entry for every
===
- Original Message -
From: Brian Keener [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: Setup
Robert Collins wrote:
I have emailed trying to start a discussion on this at least twice.
My
contention
===
- Original Message -
From: Brian Keener [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But if I select test (which means 'give me a testing package not a
testing
distribution')
No it doesn't. Clicking on a package version is how one selects per
package versions.
and the only test version available is a
===
- Original Message -
From: Brian Keener [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: Setup
Robert Collins wrote:
But if I select test (which means 'give me a testing package not a
testing
distribution')
No it doesn't
Ok,
finally got some breathing time.
Setup with char * eliminated is ~350K. Ouch.
This is why I've not committed my patch yet (I've been trying to see
*where* the extra 100K appeared from).
Chris - is this a problem? IMO it's still a tiny fraction of the total
distribution size, and we're
===
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 2:19 AM
Subject: Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 08:35:57PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
Ok,
finally got some breathing time
Please, no checkins to cinstall until this is sorted
I have a bucketload in my sandbox - including that one! - and I don't
want to face merge issues - which your commit is causing.
So can you please back that commit out.
Rob
===
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL
===
- Original Message -
From: Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big
*please* make sure that the '-' vs. '_' fix is in before releasing the
new
===
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: ttcp package ready
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 02:07:43PM -0800, Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
I've created the Cygwin package for ttcp, after
I'm snowed under right now. I'll be paying more attention late next
week...
Sorry for the delay.
Rob
===
- Original Message -
From: Gary R. Van Sickle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just built the latest setup.exe. It looks really nice. And, I
see that
clickable categories are working!
Are they ever! And did you catch the replace files in use feature?
Yeah it
makes you reboot, but still,
===
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 3:40 PM
Subject: setup.exe looks good!
I just built the latest setup.exe. It looks really nice. And, I see
that
clickable categories are working!
:]. It
===
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've checked in a fix for this but I expect that it won't be necessary
when setup.exe is released. I'll probably be linking some kind of
library
from cinstall or something.
The libraries not quite ready, but is
===
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Btw, I hope this isn't taken as a criticism of the current state of
setup.exe. There are obviously a lot of wonderful improvements in it.
Glad to hear you think so :}.
I'm just getting the same uneasy feeling that
801 - 900 of 1001 matches
Mail list logo
