On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Dave Korn wrote:
> Igor wrote:
>
> > I've looked at this a bit. Here's the weird part: the error
> > says "Uncaught Exception", but all the throws of that
> > exception appear to be properly wrapped in try/catch blocks.
> > So a simple "change exception into an mbox" kind of
Igor wrote:
> I've looked at this a bit. Here's the weird part: the error
> says "Uncaught Exception", but all the throws of that
> exception appear to be properly wrapped in try/catch blocks.
> So a simple "change exception into an mbox" kind of solution
> won't work here. More debugging is nee
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:56:39PM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > Moving to cygwin-apps, as this is likely to get technical.
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Brian Dessent wrote:
> >
> > > Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've looked at this a
Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> Just to reemphasize, these are *not* corrupt tarballs. They are
> tarballs exactly as downloaded, extracted, and installed. It's just
> that later the versions on the cygwin mirror became different while
> keeping the same version/filename. I verified in a coupl
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:56:39PM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> Moving to cygwin-apps, as this is likely to get technical.
>
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Brian Dessent wrote:
>
> > Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >
> > > I've looked at this a bit. Here's the weird part: the error says
> > > "Uncaught Except
Moving to cygwin-apps, as this is likely to get technical.
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Igor Peshansky wrote:
>
> > I've looked at this a bit. Here's the weird part: the error says
> > "Uncaught Exception", but all the throws of that exception appear to be
> > properly wrapped in
Igor Peshansky wrote:
> I've looked at this a bit. Here's the weird part: the error says
> "Uncaught Exception", but all the throws of that exception appear to be
> properly wrapped in try/catch blocks. So a simple "change exception into
> an mbox" kind of solution won't work here. More debuggi
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:37:12PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
> > Linda Walsh wrote:
> >
> > > Is an application crash the expected behavior when
> > > package validation fails? Maybe it should mark it unusable
> > > or delete it?
>
> Yuck.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:37:12PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Linda Walsh wrote:
>
> > Is an application crash the expected behavior when
> > package validation fails? Maybe it should mark it unusable
> > or delete it?
Yuck. I went through this, too. It appeared to me that there were a
larg
Linda Walsh wrote:
> Is an application crash the expected behavior when
> package validation fails? Maybe it should mark it unusable
> or delete it?
At the moment, yes. It's a consequence of a change in the md5
checking. It just means you need to delete the package, as it has the
wrong size or
I went into setup and asked it to install from local directory.
It went past the root dialog, then displayed the local pacakge
directory \\server\share\software\cygwin, hit Next
initializes and starts parsing ini file, then I see
it parsing some package, then a popup dialog that displays
read-onl
11 matches
Mail list logo
