-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 10:58 AM
Well it shouldn't. There is definitely something wrong with
setup and
downloads at the moment, but I haven't tracked it down yet.
What about the this page
sitecopy is worth a look as a mirroring tool..
Rob
Robert Collins wrote:
sitecopy is worth a look as a mirroring tool..
Sitecopy is intended for keeping a remote site in sync with the local
master version (e.g. uploading your personal website to a server on
which you have ftp access). It's isn't great for keeping a local mirror
of a
Charles Wilson wrote:
1) move gettext from the contrib directory to the latest directory --
and see if anybody barfs.
I did this. It's been many moons and many point releases (and a major
release) since the last time we moved a package directory (ncurses, I
think) from contrib to
Okay, it's been a week -- and nobody seems to have noticed. That's
promising. So, I'll go out on a limb here, and predict that cgf's
massive reorg of the sourceware/cygwin dir structure won't
upset setup
(no pun intended).
Urrgh.
However, it may upset people who are anal
about
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:05:19AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
But those are social problems, not technical ones.
And ones I have little sympathy for. Setup is a technical tool, not a
social one. It's not aimed at being the best downloader, only the best
installer. Mirroring that handles
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 10:10 AM
The only thing I can think of to do is to get rid of
latest/contrib and move to something else, like 'release',
with all of the current directories located
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:53:28AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 10:10 AM
The only thing I can think of to do is to get rid of
latest/contrib and move to something else, like
Well it shouldn't. There is definitely something wrong with setup and
downloads at the moment, but I haven't tracked it down yet.
What about the this page intentionally left blank report? Is that
on your list?
My patch of ~ a week ago puts that one out of our misery permanently.
--
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:16:32PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Well it shouldn't. There is definitely something wrong with setup and
downloads at the moment, but I haven't tracked it down yet.
What about the this page intentionally left blank report? Is that on
your list?
My patch of ~ a
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:16:32PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Well it shouldn't. There is definitely something wrong with setup and
downloads at the moment, but I haven't tracked it down yet.
What about the this page intentionally left blank report? Is that on
your list?
My
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:05:19AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
But those are social problems, not technical ones.
And ones I have little sympathy for. Setup is a technical tool, not a
social one. It's not aimed at being the best downloader, only the best
installer.
Could you maybe put it back and just randomly display it? I kind of
like the whimsy of such a thing.
Whaddaya think's going in the big white box?
Some part of this:
http://www.msu.edu/~huntharo/xwin/logo-ideas/mclean-20020221-0940.png
maybe?
I like the cygwin C part.
cgf
Could you maybe put it back and just randomly display it? I kind of
like the whimsy of such a thing.
Whaddaya think's going in the big white box?
Some part of this:
http://www.msu.edu/~huntharo/xwin/logo-ideas/mclean-20020221-0940.png
maybe?
I like the cygwin C part.
cgf
Ooh,
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:31:17PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
The only thing I can think of to do is to get rid of latest/contrib and
move to something else, like 'release', with all of the current
directories located underneath.
You mean like:
cygwin/latest/zlib
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:40:06PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Ooh, that's kinda cool. The C kinda looks like a staple though, maybe a
little less pointiness.
Do you want to edit it? I doubt that the author (artist?) would mind.
Maybe rounding the corners would help.
cgf
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:40:06PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Ooh, that's kinda cool. The C kinda looks like a staple though, maybe a
little less pointiness.
Do you want to edit it? I doubt that the author (artist?) would mind.
Maybe rounding the corners would help.
Well, I do
Robert Collins wrote:
2) update bzip2 to the latest release -- which involves the grand
library split thing (bzip2 - bzip2 + libbz2_0).
However, the name
libbz2_0 is incompatible with the old setup, and even
'cygcheck -c'
gets confused prior to the cygwin-1.3.8 release.
But I didn't
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:53:17PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
Once that box is deployed we should have some excess capacity for things
like rsync and maybe we can even allow downloads from
sources.redhat.com again.
But I thought the problem with sourceware has been (a) processing load
AND (b)
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:01:30PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
Okay -- I'll upload it once I get home. (Especially as Chris is
advocating that the xfree folks use '_' in the names of their font
packages, as a NONseparator --- it's that '_' which causes the
incompatibility with the old
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:44 AM
I also have a friend who's working on and off on a web based
install, fwiw.
Is this to supplant/work with setup.exe, or is it unrelated? I'd look at
wrapping
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 12:13:33PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I also have a friend who's working on and off on a web based
install, fwiw.
Is this to supplant/work with setup.exe, or is it unrelated?
It's unrelated. It was an exercise in
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 12:13 PM
That won't help setup.ini-less installs much but, er...
... who cares?
Lol,
Rob
Oooo, NOW I get it. I didn't understand that verpat: was a new
field in setup.hint, PARSED by upset. It's perfectly clear in hindsight.
Nevermind my earlier comments. Time for some sleep.
--Chuck
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:24:18PM -0400, Charles Wilson
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:42:04PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
Oooo, NOW I get it. I didn't understand that verpat: was a new
field in setup.hint, PARSED by upset. It's perfectly clear in hindsight.
That's probably because, on rereading, my description didn't make that
clear.
Nevermind
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
