On 2003.07.17 09:16, Charles Wilson wrote:
1) already recompiled for 1.5.0
2) non-binary
3) binary, but not for new use (e.g. could be recompiled, but why?)
4) empty compatibility packages (newlib-man, texmf?)
5) need to be recompiled 1.5.0
NEED TO BE RECOMPILED FOR 1.5.0
Robert Collins wrote:
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 04:17, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Unless there will ever be a need to ask a page whether
it would take activation in the future, but not activate it
immediately, even if it is possible to do so, I think the 2 calls
should be merged. Will there ever
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 17:32, Morrison, John wrote:
Would...
if (canActivate())
OnActivate()
be better? (although the OnXXX functions always make me think that
they should be callbacks.)
Yes - I was simply leaving method names alone until I had an answer on
the ordering breaking
@ Aspell
date : 07 Apr 2003
version: 0.50.3-1
status : reviewed (downloads for 1.5 only)
notes : http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-04/msg00155.html
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-04/msg00356.html
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-06/msg00239.html
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 15:25, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Well, my current code appears to work if changed to do that. But then
OnAcceptActivate() is equivalent to my original return value changes (i.e. just
leave OnActivate() empty and OnAcceptActivate() is your message handler).
Maybe I'm not
Trying to find out everything thats been happening ... my hotmail clogged up
and a whole stack of email didnt get delivered - somewhat of a mess. It
even deleted some of my older emails - annoying. - in future i'll not keep
any old emails around in hotmail :)
I'd rather let Gareth take a look
Hi,
I've uploaded the 64 bit version of login, 1.9-6, marked as test.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Red Hat, Inc.
Hi,
I've uploaded the 64 bit version of patch, 2.5.8-4, marked as test.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Red Hat, Inc.
Guile 1.6.4 is available for upload.
Btw, I would have a 1.5.0 version for test: available. However, as
lilypond [is the only package that] depends on guile, I think it makes
sense to upload 1.5.0 versions of both packages together. But
lilypond also depends on tetex, and tetex is still
OK, this is a general reply to multiple messages.
I still believe bool OnActivate() to be the better option - here's why:
The if(canActivate()){OnActivate()} scheme makes 2 method calls where only
one is required. It also opens the possibility for OnActivate to be called
when activation is not
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
I'll do my best to get something up yet tonight. Again though Max, please
keep in mind that I posted the SetupXP stuff mainly so people could try
out
the now-proven-to-not-work-right XP theme feature, not because I had loads
of
time to get back on the
Gary,
Here is a partial list of issues from your mega-patch.
* Issue: Drop -r HEAD
Please do this ASAP. If you need further evidence for the desirability of
this, just look to res.rc, specifically at the way your diff removes my
multiline comment about MS Shell Dlg.
* Issue: LogFile::Exit
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 04:14:43PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Guile 1.6.4 is available for upload.
Btw, I would have a 1.5.0 version for test: available. However, as
lilypond [is the only package that] depends on guile, I think it makes
sense to upload 1.5.0 versions of both packages
Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think it makes sense to upload 1.5.0 versions of both packages
together. But lilypond also depends on tetex, and tetex is still
waiting for tiff and XFree.
That's a problem since Harold decided to wait for 1.5.0 becoming the
official release
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 06:48:35PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think it makes sense to upload 1.5.0 versions of both packages
together. But lilypond also depends on tetex, and tetex is still
waiting for tiff and XFree.
That's a problem
Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why are we waiting for these libraries? Do they export variables or
functions which rely on new 64 bit types?
I haven't investigated that. It's just that they are listed in:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg07117.html
as
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 08:17:44PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why are we waiting for these libraries? Do they export variables or
functions which rely on new 64 bit types?
I haven't investigated that. It's just that they are listed in:
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 00:02, Max Bowsher wrote:
OK, this is a general reply to multiple messages.
I still believe bool OnActivate() to be the better option - here's why:
The if(canActivate()){OnActivate()} scheme makes 2 method calls where only
one is required.
Premature optimisation.
It looks like setup.exe is downloading the wrong source
packages if a package has a test entry in setup.ini.
You can confirm this by doing a default installation,
setting the installation type to Download from Internet,
and asking setup to download the source package for
zlib-1.1.4-1 (for
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 06:27, Robb, Sam wrote:
It looks like setup.exe is downloading the wrong source
packages if a package has a test entry in setup.ini.
You can confirm this by doing a default installation,
setting the installation type to Download from Internet,
and asking setup to
On Mon, 22 Jul 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 06:27, Robb, Sam wrote:
It looks like setup.exe is downloading the wrong source
packages if a package has a test entry in setup.ini.
You can confirm this by doing a default installation,
setting the installation type to
Can you confirm this:
delete your setup.log and setup.log.full.
run with the latest snapshot, and then post:
your setup.log
setup.log.full
the setup.ini's that setup placed in the directory cache with the
mistmatched tarballs..
Gladly. Still see the same behavior with setup-2.364.
The
in the
announcement about that.
Please,
upload:
http://ptsekov.gamersrevolt.it/cygwin/release/mc/mc-4.6.0a-20030721-1-src.tar.bz2
http://ptsekov.gamersrevolt.it/cygwin/release/mc/mc-4.6.0a-20030721-1.tar.bz2
http://ptsekov.gamersrevolt.it/cygwin/release/mc/setup.hint
Thanks!
Pavel
--
+++ GMX
Robb, Sam wrote:
It looks like setup.exe is downloading the wrong source
packages if a package has a test entry in setup.ini.
You can confirm this by doing a default installation,
setting the installation type to Download from Internet,
and asking setup to download the source package for
At 06:11 AM 7/20/2003 -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
I've just posted an *official* new release of gdbm to the main list. I
reverted my entire system to 1.3.22 status (no test packages at all), and
rebuilt gdbm with Pierre's programs. That's the new, curr: release
(1.8.3-3)
Then, I moved forward
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
Please,
upload:
http://ptsekov.gamersrevolt.it/cygwin/release/mc/mc-4.6.0a-20030721-1-src.tar.bz2
http://ptsekov.gamersrevolt.it/cygwin/release/mc/mc-4.6.0a-20030721-1.tar.bz2
http://ptsekov.gamersrevolt.it/cygwin/release/mc/setup.hint
Done
I'm still letting you guys fight this out, but I'm going to snipe from the
sidelines ;-):
[snip]
I do not see bool OnActivate() as being confusing, nor as less intuitive
that firing 2 event handlers consecutively.
There is only one handler. I'm glad that it wouldn't confuse you though
:}.
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Guile 1.6.4 is available for upload.
Btw, I would have a 1.5.0 version for test: available. However, as
lilypond [is the only package that] depends on guile, I think it makes
sense to upload 1.5.0 versions of both packages together. But
lilypond also depends on
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 08:17:44PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why are we waiting for these libraries? Do they export variables or
functions which rely on new 64 bit types?
I haven't investigated that. It's
Gary,
Here is a partial list of issues from your mega-patch.
I still bristle at the mega ;-). 43K including the bulk of res.rc ain't even
*close* to mega ;-).
* Issue: Drop -r HEAD
Please do this ASAP. If you need further evidence for the desirability of
this, just look to res.rc,
Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
Given that 1.8.3-3 and 1.8.3-4 contain incompatible dlls, isn't the
tradition to name the packages differently and have them coexist in
setup for a while (without default upgrading when in non-test mode)?
That way old applications can keep working when gdbm is updated
At 11:32 PM 7/21/2003 -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
Given that 1.8.3-3 and 1.8.3-4 contain incompatible dlls, isn't the
tradition to name the packages differently and have them coexist in
setup for a while (without default upgrading when in non-test mode)?
That
32 matches
Mail list logo
