Hallo CygWinApps,
I have packaged NASM. I think I will maintain it
as long as someone else steps in.
setup.hint:
sdesc: NetWide Assembler
ldesc: This is a modified distribution of NASM, the Netwide Assembler. NASM
is a prototype general-purpose x86 assembler. It will currently output
Ok, that was two votes ;)
I have been using the code for several months now, so I am pretty
confident with it. The packages can be downloaded from
http://www.stonegard.com/cygwin/
Let me know when you have gotten them, or should I get access to push
them up myself somehow?
--
Prentis Brooks
I'd love to see it.
-Original Message-
From: Prentis Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 8:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: TCP Wrappers
Ok, that was two votes ;)
I have been using the code for several months now, so I am
pretty confident
Charles Wilson wrote:
Lame followup to my own post:
I think we should have A 'more' package for this reason:
Q: Where's more?
A: In the 'more' package.
makes a lot more sense than
Q: Where's more?
A: Use less instead. It's better. BTW, you'll probably need to set
PAGER=less.
Thanks, Chris. I won't be able to take a look at a new package until
mid April.
Earnie.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 04:59:06PM -0800, Michael A Chase wrote:
I've installed all packages except postgres. The only packages I have
with the leading './' are opengl and
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 09:35:50AM +0100, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Hallo CygWinApps,
I have packaged NASM. I think I will maintain it
as long as someone else steps in.
There are no licensing issues with this package?
cgf
setup.hint:
sdesc: NetWide Assembler
ldesc: This is a modified
This version of NASM has been modified by SciTech Software such that it
I'm all for going to the heart of the issue - why are you going to a
modified version? When they're still making improvements to the base? I
mean sure it's modified, but that locks it into an old version path
There
Christopher,
Freitag, 22. März 2002 19:00:01, du schriebst:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 09:35:50AM +0100, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Hallo CygWinApps,
I have packaged NASM. I think I will maintain it
as long as someone else steps in.
There are no licensing issues with this package?
Not that I'm
Now that we have clickable categories, I think we should consider not
making Base the default installation, defaulting to something like
Standard instead.
Standard would include things like:
base +
bzip2
bash
clear
tcsh
less
vim
telnet
ssh
cygrunsrv
mutt
perl?
python?
shutdown?
ssmtp
unzip
zip
Has my vote.
Earnie.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Now that we have clickable categories, I think we should consider not
making Base the default installation, defaulting to something like
Standard instead.
Standard would include things like:
base +
bzip2
bash
clear
tcsh
less
vim
-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
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?
That sounds great to me as long as minimal is still easy to get.
The thing that frustrated me most about the old setup was that as a
dial-up user I
-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
On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 04:30:23PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
You're very unhappy with overloading categories while this is exactly
what I had envisioned when I suggested them. And, I strongly disagree
with the above way of dealing with things.
Why? (Not trying to be dificult here).
Again,
I think I've seen the light.
I think that selecting individual version numbers in setup is
evil and should be abolished. The only way to get old versions
should be at a macro level. You click a button and get all of
the old stuff, you click another button and get all of the current
stuff, you
-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
18 matches
Mail list logo
