Christopher Faylor schrieb:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 12:28:27AM -0500, Robb, Sam wrote:
So it looks like the package files aren't being closed somewhere.
Taking a look at the source, and trying to figure out where something
like this might occur, I ended up in in install.cc, where I saw the
Christopher Faylor wrote:
...is it true?
Is very definitely true.
I've committed a fix, but as I began to test the new setup for release, I
discovered a regression since 2.427 (I finally reproduced the Unregistered
URL scheme), and a further crash in 2.427.
And now I'm stuck with a
Max Bowsher wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
...is it true?
Is very definitely true.
I've committed a fix,
Ooops, no I haven't, it's still in my WC.
but as I began to test the new setup for release, I
discovered a regression since 2.427 (I finally reproduced the
Unregistered
URL scheme), and a
Max Bowsher schrieb:
Max Bowsher wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
...is it true?
Is very definitely true.
I've committed a fix,
Ooops, no I haven't, it's still in my WC.
but as I began to test the new setup for release, I
discovered a regression since 2.427 (I finally reproduced the
Unregistered
(where I'm assuming that 'delete tmp' is the proper way to
deal with a
pointer returned by io_stream::open()...)
You cannot directly delete tmp. This is delegated to the
stream provider.
That's what I was afraid of. Leaving a returned pointer
hanging around is such an obvious problem, I
...is it true? It seems like there are some valid concerns about
problems with setup.exe in the cygwin mailing list and no one is
addressing them.
Setup.exe is too important a piece of the cygwin release for it to
go unsupported. Please, someone (Max?) respond to and, if possible,
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 12:28:27AM -0500, Robb, Sam wrote:
So it looks like the package files aren't being closed somewhere.
Taking a look at the source, and trying to figure out where something
like this might occur, I ended up in in install.cc, where I saw the
following comment in
