On 19/08/2010 14:57, Andrew Schulman wrote:
I think that a bug tracker would be a nice improvement to our
development workflow. As a package maintainer, I'd love to be able to
call up a page of all of the open bugs for all of the packages I maintain.
I also think that the work to set up and mai
On 18/08/2010 21:50, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Aug 18 21:32, William Blunn wrote:
On 18/08/2010 19:26, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 06:40:17PM +0100, William Blunn wrote:
My apologies to all the folks NOT involved in maintaining the ImageMagick
package
On 18/08/2010 19:26, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 06:40:17PM +0100, William Blunn wrote:
My apologies to all the folks NOT involved in maintaining the ImageMagick
package, but there doesn't appear to be any defined process for reporting bugs
which might narrow
I have now installed the packages libX11_6 and libXext6.
ImageMagick's "convert" is now working.
I suspect that the ImageMagick Cygwin package may need to be modified to
make it depend on libX11_6 and libXext6.
Bill
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:
My apologies to all the folks NOT involved in maintaining the
ImageMagick package, but there doesn't appear to be any defined process
for reporting bugs which might narrow down the attention-grab to a more
relevant set of people.
I had some insufficient package dependency problems wite ImageMa
wynfi...@gmail.com wrote:
William Blunn wrote:
ImageMagick 6.4.0.6-2 does not work out-of-the-box on a fresh Cygwin
install.
Intertesting I had no trouble with ImageMagick 6.6.2-1, which is newer
of course.
It built with no trouble out of the tarball downloaded from
Imagemagick source.
I
Cygwin does not appear to have a bug tracker.
That being the case:
How do we keep all information about a bug together in one referenceable place?
How do we keep a bug around and tracked through to completion?
i.e. How do we do the things that every other project uses a bug tracker for?
Seems
As a temporary fudge hack workaround bodge to get things moving, I have
attempted to find the missing DLLs.
== cyggomp-1.dll ==
Try installing libgomp1 4.3.4-3 "GOMP shared runtime" ?
== cygltdl-7.dll ==
Try installing libltdl7 2.2.7a-15 "Libtool's dynamic loader (runtime)" ?
== cygtiff-5.dl
I have a DVD-R disk on to which I have recorded a hierarchy of
directories and files.
I then put the DVD-R into a DVD drive, and change directory to the top
level of the DVD drive.
If I run "find -noleaf -type d" over this DVD-R using findutils 4.3.1-3,
it does NOT find all the files.
If I
I was using Microsoft Outlook Express, which does not support
format=flowed.
Turns out this is not entirely true.
Outlook Express *does* have some support for format=flowed, but not as much
as Thunderbird.
Using the default setting of "Encode Text Using" = "None" (as opposed to
"quoted-printabl
rbird 1.0, which does support format=flowed.
So *this* message should come out nicely for everyone, both in e-mail
and in the archive, *and* with no extra effort required on my part.
Marvellous!
Bill
--
William Blunn
Tao, 62/63 Suttons Business Park, Earley, Reading, RG6 1AZ, UK
Tel: +44 845 644 4
On 2004-07-08, Larry Hall wrote:
> At 10:02 AM 7/8/2004, you wrote:
> >I have been using *ixy-type systems on and off for what must now be
> >16 years, including using "find".
> >
> >I was using "find" today on an UDF/ISO format DVD-R, and was
> >perplexed by it seemingly missing out large chunks o
Limiting line length to fewer than 65 characters is about being
"conservative in what you send".
My contention is about mail archivers being "liberal in what you [they]
receive".
Bill
--
William Blunn
Tao, 62/63 Suttons Business Park, Earley, Reading, RG6 1AZ, UK
Tel: +44 845
han, say, 80 characters, and
flag those for wrapping as well.
Bill
--
William Blunn
Tao, 62/63 Suttons Business Park, Earley, Reading, RG6 1AZ, UK
Tel: +44 845 644 4458, Fax: +44 845 644 4459, Web: http://tao-group.com/
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports
ld look at the message it
is attempting to render as HTML and if all sequences of non-newlines are
80 characters or less, then use , and if not, then use alternative
formatting which allows for wrapping, e.g. with newline processing.
Bill
--
William Blunn
Tao, 62/63 Suttons Business Park, Earle
> "If you're archiving people's posts for all time, there is a moral
> obligation on you to archive them absolutely *verbatim* and not tamper
> with, edit, reformat, or otherwise alter them."
I wasn't suggesting tampering with them.
Information should be preserved where possible.
My contenti
> On Jul 9 11:03, William Blunn wrote:
> > I think not. I think the counter argument would be "Yes we know it
> > makes the occasional command-line appear line-wrapped, but that is a
> > nano-issue compared to the downside which is that it will mess up the
> > dis
hard.
It hasn't caused any problems on the systems I set up, and has made
things a lot easier by not having to waste time trying to browbeat users
into doing things in a particular way.
Bill
--
William Blunn
Tao, 62/63 Suttons Business Park, Earley, Reading, RG6 1AZ, UK
Tel: +44 845 64
> On Jul 9 10:36, William Blunn wrote:
> > > My mail reader is no "modern" mail reader and I'm not interested to use
> > > one since I'm old-fashioned enough to dislike the mouse. So my mail reader
> > > is running in an 80 column window.
> &
asional command-line appear line-wrapped, but that is a
nano-issue compared to the downside which is that it will mess up the
display for all the flowed messages, which is a far bigger issue."
Bill
--
William Blunn
Tao, 62/63 Suttons Business Park, Earley, Reading, RG6 1AZ, UK
> My mail reader is no "modern" mail reader and I'm not interested to use
> one since I'm old-fashioned enough to dislike the mouse. So my mail reader
> is running in an 80 column window.
> Unwrapped mails and weird line breaks drop my attention span to read
> the whole posting to a minimum.
How
y, just because something has always been done in a
particular way, doesn't mean that it should never be reviewed.
If there are logical reasons for changing, for example getting a better
match to the conditions of a changed world, without creating backwards-
compatibility problems, then ch
I have been using *ixy-type systems on and off for what must now be 16 years,
including using "find".
I was using "find" today on an UDF/ISO format DVD-R, and was perplexed by it seemingly
missing out large chunks of the hierarchy at random.
It seems that "find" has an optimisation relating to
23 matches
Mail list logo
