Corinna Vinschen writes:
> > Achim Gratz writes:
> > > Corinna Vinschen writes:
> > >> I just explained that in a reply an the cygwin-apps list:
> > >> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2013-11/msg00075.html
> > >>
> > >> I applied a patch to setup which should fix the issue.
> > >
> > > The patch W
On 11/17/13, 6:28 PM, Andrey Repin wrote:
Greetings, David Stacey!
Regarding you second point:
My second point is that I can't tell from looking at a directory, if I'm
inside a working copy or not. Launching any additional tools to do simple
telling is not an option.
This is a major drawback f
> On Nov 19 14:20, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> > On 11/19/2013 2:03 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >Looks like it, yes. What on earth were they thinking?
> >
> > Who says they were thinking? ;-)
>
> Point.
>
> I found what happened:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
> us/library/windows/desktop/
On 11/19/2013 10:13, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Why do they have to make such a mess out of a simple function like
GetVersionEx?
Backwards compatibility at all costs?
How dense is that?
Manifest Density.
(American joke.)
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:
On Nov 19 22:51, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Nov 20 00:59, Andrey Repin wrote:
> > Greetings, Corinna Vinschen!
> >
> > > Why isn't there at least an additional non-manifest way to claim
> > > compatibility with the current OS? :(
> >
> > Because this "claim" is informational, or at least it sho
On Nov 20 00:59, Andrey Repin wrote:
> Greetings, Corinna Vinschen!
>
> > Why isn't there at least an additional non-manifest way to claim
> > compatibility with the current OS? :(
>
> Because this "claim" is informational, or at least it should be.
But apparently it isn't. It's enforced.
Howe
Greetings, Corinna Vinschen!
> Why isn't there at least an additional non-manifest way to claim
> compatibility with the current OS? :(
Because this "claim" is informational, or at least it should be.
--
WBR,
Andrey Repin (anrdae...@yandex.ru) 20.11.2013, <00:56>
Sorry for my terrible english.
On Nov 19 21:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Nov 19 14:20, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> > On 11/19/2013 2:03 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >On Nov 19 13:21, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > >>On 11/19/2013 12:13 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >>>Why do they have to make such a mess out of a simple fun
On Nov 19 14:20, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> On 11/19/2013 2:03 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Nov 19 13:21, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >>On 11/19/2013 12:13 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>>Why do they have to make such a mess out of a simple function like
> >>>GetVersionEx? It returns different
On 11/19/2013 2:03 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Nov 19 13:21, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 11/19/2013 12:13 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Why do they have to make such a mess out of a simple function like
GetVersionEx? It returns different OS version numbers based on the
existence of a manifest in
On Nov 19 13:21, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 11/19/2013 12:13 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >Why do they have to make such a mess out of a simple function like
> >GetVersionEx? It returns different OS version numbers based on the
> >existence of a manifest in the executable. How dense is that?
> >
On 11/19/2013 12:13 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Why do they have to make such a mess out of a simple function like
GetVersionEx? It returns different OS version numbers based on the
existence of a manifest in the executable. How dense is that?
So we have thousands of executables, none of them
On Nov 19 09:37, Warren Young wrote:
> On 11/19/2013 03:03, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> >I'm also going
> >to look for a solution to differ between Windows 8 and 8.1 (also 2012
> >vs. 2012R2) in the cygcheck output.
>
> GetVersionEx() should do it: http://goo.gl/DbhsRJ
>
> If you follow the lin
On Nov 19 09:30, Harry G McGavran Jr wrote:
> Achim Gratz writes:
> > Corinna Vinschen writes:
> >> I just explained that in a reply an the cygwin-apps list:
> >> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2013-11/msg00075.html
> >>
> >> I applied a patch to setup which should fix the issue.
> >
> > The patc
On 11/19/2013 03:03, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
I'm also going
to look for a solution to differ between Windows 8 and 8.1 (also 2012
vs. 2012R2) in the cygcheck output.
GetVersionEx() should do it: http://goo.gl/DbhsRJ
If you follow the link to the OSVERSIONINFO structure, you will find a
table
Achim Gratz writes:
> Corinna Vinschen writes:
>> I just explained that in a reply an the cygwin-apps list:
>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2013-11/msg00075.html
>>
>> I applied a patch to setup which should fix the issue.
>
> The patch WJFFM.
>
But in line 266 of main.cc set_cout() is still c
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 02:27:48PM +0200, Sophoklis Goumas wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:23 PM, marco atzeri wrote:
>> the two reports are separated
>>
>> http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/package-grep.cgi?grep=cygutils-extra&arch=x86_64
>>
>
>I know and hence this discussion.
>
>But should omitting
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:23 PM, marco atzeri wrote:
> the two reports are separated
>
> http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/package-grep.cgi?grep=cygutils-extra&arch=x86_64
>
I know and hence this discussion.
But should omitting the arch criteria, tha being the '&arch=x86_64'
part of the the URI return
Il 11/19/2013 12:04 PM, Sophoklis Goumas ha scritto:
Hello everyone, and a special hello to this mailing list's regulars!
Shouldn't the following:
http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/package-grep.cgi?grep=cygutils-extra
return results for both x86 and x86_64 architectures?
Sophoklis
the two reports a
Hello everyone, and a special hello to this mailing list's regulars!
Shouldn't the following:
http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/package-grep.cgi?grep=cygutils-extra
return results for both x86 and x86_64 architectures?
Sophoklis
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:
On Nov 18 21:35, Gabriel Marcano wrote:
> cygcheck -svc causes a segfault on Windows 8.1 on line 1610 of cygcheck.cc,
> based on gdb output. I'm including some gdb output below that showcases this
> issue:
>
>
> 1610 strcat (osname, products[prod]);
> (gdb) list
> 1605
21 matches
Mail list logo