Re: cygport/rsync problem

The problem is still existing: $ cygport emacs-22.3-1.cygport prep Preparing emacs-22.3-1 *** Info: SOURCE 1 signature follows: gpg: WARNING: using insecure memory! gpg: please see http://www.gnupg.org/faq.html for more information gpg: Signature made Fri Sep 5 18:34:56 2008 WEST using

Re: cygport/rsync problem

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Steffen Sledz wrote: The problem is still existing: $ cygport emacs-22.3-1.cygport prep Preparing emacs-22.3-1 *** Info: SOURCE 1 signature follows: gpg: WARNING: using insecure memory! gpg: please see http://www.gnupg.org/faq.html for

Re: cygport/rsync problem

On 1/18/2009 1:11 PM, Steffen Sledz wrote: The problem is still existing: You received a reply on the main cygwin mailing list to your first message about this problem: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2008-10/msg00524.html By the way, do you subscribe to that list? There was quite a bit of

[RFU 1.5] libapr1-1.3.3-3

wget -x -nH --cut-dirs=2 \ http://mysite.verizon.net/res00a7j/cygwin/libapr1/apr1/apr1-1.3.3-3.tar.bz2 \ http://mysite.verizon.net/res00a7j/cygwin/libapr1/apr1/setup.hint \ http://mysite.verizon.net/res00a7j/cygwin/libapr1/libapr1-1.3.3-3-src.tar.bz2 \

[ITP] bind-9.6.0-1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 This is quickly becoming a FAQ, so: ftp://ftp.cygwinports.org/pub/cygwinports/release/bind/bind-9.6.0-1-src.tar.bz2 ftp://ftp.cygwinports.org/pub/cygwinports/release/bind/bind-9.6.0-1.tar.bz2

Re: [ITP] mintty 0.3.4

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Andy Koppe wrote: I'd like to maintain MinTTY as an official Cygwin package. MinTTY is a small and fast pty-based terminal emulator with a native Windows user interface. As it's a new program, it requires 5 positive votes. +1, that makes five.

Re: [ITP] mintty 0.3.4

Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: Glad to help. Under the circumstances, I'll let someone else to review the packages. It's a really quick build with deps only on cygwin and w32api, so I hope someone will step forward quickly. Packaging looks good, and builds fine from source. Just one quibble with

Re: [ITP] mintty 0.3.4

Charles Wilson wrote: Doesn't cygwin officially support i386, or are we allowed to assume i586 and above, now? Considering that support for Win98 is going to be dropped, the question may be answered if Win2K or better will even run on a 386 or 486? :-) Ralph

Re: [ITP] mintty 0.3.4

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Ralph Hempel on 1/18/2009 4:44 PM: Charles Wilson wrote: Doesn't cygwin officially support i386, or are we allowed to assume i586 and above, now? Considering that support for Win98 is going to be dropped, the question may be

Re: [ITP] mintty 0.3.4

Eric Blake wrote: According to Ralph Hempel on 1/18/2009 4:44 PM: Charles Wilson wrote: Doesn't cygwin officially support i386, or are we allowed to assume i586 and above, now? Considering that support for Win98 is going to be dropped, the question may be answered if Win2K or better will

Re: [ITP] mintty 0.3.4

Hang on... one little afterthought. Considering that support for Win98 is going to be dropped, the question may be answered if Win2K or better will even run on a 386 or 486? :-) Did we drop support for NT4 already? ;-) cheers, DaveK

Re: [ITP] mintty 0.3.4

Ralph Hempel wrote: Charles Wilson wrote: Doesn't cygwin officially support i386, or are we allowed to assume i586 and above, now? Considering that support for Win98 is going to be dropped, the question may be answered if Win2K or better will even run on a 386 or 486? :-) a) cygwin-1.7

Re: [ITP] mintty 0.3.4

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Dave Korn wrote: Did we drop support for NT4 already? ;-) Is NT4 really *still* supported by MS? Yaakov -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

Re: [ITP] bind-9.6.0-1

Woo hoo! Thanks Yaakov! cgf

Re: [ITP] mintty 0.3.4

I'd like to maintain MinTTY as an official Cygwin package. MinTTY is a small and fast pty-based terminal emulator with a native Windows user interface. As it's a new program, it requires 5 positive votes. +1, that makes five. Thanks everyone for the support! Charles Wilson wrote: a)