Christopher Faylor-2 wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if you got my point or not but if you don't develop an
> installer which deals with categories and dependencies, then I don't see
> how it could be considered a replacement for setup.exe. If you do this,
> then you don't need to list all of the pack
Tevfik Karagülle wrote:
>
> In the first phase, I can think of producing a monolithic
> installer for the core environment performing tasks
> below:
>
> - Create basic cygwin registry mountpoints
> - untar packages
> - run the postinstall script
> - Create start menu items and shortcuts (optio
Christopher Faylor-2 wrote:
>
> Since you haven't been able to come up with any cygwin-specific
> information (or any information really), I'm declaring this topic over.
> If you want to continue in this vein, use cygwin-talk. This is your
> only warning.
>
I'm sorry you're having a tantrum.
Christopher Faylor-2 wrote:
>
> My second paragraph was stating that I didn't understand how you could
> come to the conclusion that only schools are keeping cygwin alive since
> there are clearly many messages from companies on this mailing list.
> This does not in any way attack your characte
Christopher Faylor-2 wrote:
>
> So you, infoterror, are also a student? That's interesting.
>
> Given the number of people in this mailing list from companies who run
> Cygwin, it's hard to see how you could have any basis for your opinion.
>
> Hmm. Now I rea
gdiviney wrote:
>
> A one-hour compiler class assignment has become an all-day goose-hunt.
> Thanks Cygwin developers! Maybe someday I’ll have the opportunity to waste
> an entire day of your lives. If it weren’t for schools, your aberrant work
> would have been forgotten long ago.
>
Agreed.
>According to the setup.exe default package information,
>Following 41 packages forms 'a core cygwin environment':
I think this kind of thinking makes a lot of sense when dealing with the
desktop paradigm, and will empower more users to enjoy the benefits of
cygwin.
--
View this message in
>FYI, you seem to be implying that this is some sort of UNIX installer
>when it really is just a home-grown Windows installer designed to handle
>Cygwin's needs. I have no problems with the user interface but I do
>understand that some Windows users find it unintuitive.
When installing under win
> Have you tried this with the recently announced setup.exe snapshot?
If it was announced after the first reply I made to this list, no.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Cygintl-3.dll-was-not-found-tf869884.html#a5733352
Sent from the Cygwin Users forum at Nabble.com.
>Cygwin's "c:\cygwin" contains AN ENTIRE (virtual) FILESYSTEM. I don't
> know about you, but *I* sure don't want that sort of thing under
> "Program Files" (besides which, POSIX-ish systems don't really
> appreciate spaces in file/path names).
1. You're running cygwin on a Windows system. Local
Remember, I predicted the "thin intelligences" would lash out at those from
outside their tribe who dare comment on their work. They're underconfident
and unstable, and would rather accuse others of being wrong than admit
problems exist. Watch:
>This thread was over a month ago and the guy went a
Standard response of the underconfident: accuse legitimate critics of being
illegitimate sources, e.g. trolls.
"Don't listen to the witch!"
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Cygintl-3.dll-was-not-found-tf869884.html#a5719366
Sent from the Cygwin Users forum at Nabble.com.
Brian Dessent wrote:
> Roberto Sapiens wrote:
>
> > I have dowloaded Cygwin from cygwin.com web site. From that download,
> > I have installed Cygwin with no problems in a Windows 2000 Pro
> > computer. However, when I try to install Cygwin in my Windows XP Home
> > Edition notebook, I see a me
13 matches
Mail list logo
