On Fri, 31 Mar 2017, Andrew Schulman wrote:
On Mar 30 21:17, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
On 03/28/2017 04:46 PM, Peter A. Castro wrote:
Greetings, All,
First, my apologies in advance if this is considered off-topic, or
unwelcome in some way...
Unwelcome? I find it shocking! Imagine, the a
> On Mar 30 21:17, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> > On 03/28/2017 04:46 PM, Peter A. Castro wrote:
> > > Greetings, All,
> > >First, my apologies in advance if this is considered off-topic, or
> > > unwelcome in some way...
> >
> > Unwelcome? I find it shocking! Imagine, the audacity of provid
On Mar 30 21:17, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> On 03/28/2017 04:46 PM, Peter A. Castro wrote:
> > Greetings, All,
> >First, my apologies in advance if this is considered off-topic, or
> > unwelcome in some way...
>
> Unwelcome? I find it shocking! Imagine, the audacity of providing this
> ser
On 03/28/2017 04:46 PM, Peter A. Castro wrote:
Greetings, All,
First, my apologies in advance if this is considered off-topic, or
unwelcome in some way...
Unwelcome? I find it shocking! Imagine, the audacity of providing this
service to the Cygwin community for all these years and to now i
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 28 13:46, Peter A. Castro wrote:
Greetings, All,
!! Attention !!
The Cygwin Time Machine has moved! After many years (and several
complaints) I've finally moved it to an off-site server with much better
bandwidth ava
On Mar 28 13:46, Peter A. Castro wrote:
> Greetings, All,
> First, my apologies in advance if this is considered off-topic, or
> unwelcome in some way. I figured this would be an appropriate audience in
> which to express this information. If a more appropriate forum is
> suggested, I will post
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Peter A. Castro wrote:
> Greetings, All,
> First, my apologies in advance if this is considered off-topic, or
> unwelcome in some way. I figured this would be an appropriate audience in
> which to express this information. If a more appropriate forum is
> sugges
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 2/22/2012 8:31 PM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
For individual lines there is a "New" column and I'm familiar with the
cycling behavior between things like Keep, Uninstall, Reinstall, Skip
and current and older version numbers. But this is on a by package
Peter Castro wrote:
>
> (if there's a way to make wget ignore robots.txt, I'd love to know
it!)
http://www.gnu.org/software/wget/faq.html#3.0
"3.0 How can I make GNU wget ignore a robots.txt file?
Try using:
wget -erobots=off http://your.site.here "
-Richard Campbell
--
Unsubscribe info:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Peter A. Castro wrote:
Sorry for dredging this up, but just wanted to update on a few things.
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:58:18PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > >Actually, I think this is a neat idea. I tried to do someth
Peter A. Castro wrote:
I'd still like to archive it. If you can stabalize your ftp host I'll
pull it. Alternatively, I can setup an incoming dir on my machine if
you'd prefer to push from your end.
Well three people have pulled it off in the last 10 hours and it looked like
it took them 15 to 20
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Warren Young wrote:
> Peter A. Castro wrote:
>
> > Hmm... How complete is it? Did you pull all the source packages as well?
> > Did you keep the setup.ini with it? What about the setup.exe itself?
>
> I don't remember when setup.exe came into being, but it was after b20.
> A
Peter A. Castro wrote:
Hmm... How complete is it? Did you pull all the source packages as well?
Did you keep the setup.ini with it? What about the setup.exe itself?
I don't remember when setup.exe came into being, but it was after b20.
At that time, you had the option if downloading one of two d
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Larry Hall wrote:
> At 11:05 PM 1/26/2005, you wrote:
> >Peter A. Castro wrote:
> >>
> >>might find it useful or interesting. Unfortinately, it only goes
> >>back to April of 2002, though I actually have package versions going
> >>back further, but not the setup.ini to go wit
Peter A. Castro wrote:
Hmm... How complete is it? Did you pull all the source packages as
well? Did you keep the setup.ini with it? What about the setup.exe
itself?
It's everything except the "split" downloads so 28.8k modem users will just
have to bite the bullet.
Oddly enough it comes with a b
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Jon A. Lambert wrote:
> Peter A. Castro wrote:
> >
> > might find it useful or interesting. Unfortinately, it only goes
> > back to April of 2002, though I actually have package versions going
> > back further, but not the setup.ini to go with them.
>
> You didn't mention the
At 11:05 PM 1/26/2005, you wrote:
>Peter A. Castro wrote:
>>
>>might find it useful or interesting. Unfortinately, it only goes
>>back to April of 2002, though I actually have package versions going
>>back further, but not the setup.ini to go with them.
>
>You didn't mention the b20/20.1 release.
Peter A. Castro wrote:
might find it useful or interesting. Unfortinately, it only goes
back to April of 2002, though I actually have package versions going
back further, but not the setup.ini to go with them.
You didn't mention the b20/20.1 release. If you and anyone doesn't have it
and wants i
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:25:45PM -0800, Peter A. Castro wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>However, because I'm a masochist, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a
>>good idea to advertise this as "cygwin news" on the front page of
>>http://cygwin.com/.
>
>Gosh, Chris, I'm flatte
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:58:18PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >Actually, I think this is a neat idea. I tried to do something like it
> >for personal use about 18 months ago -- I wanted a one-time snapshot of
> >the cygwin-1.3.x baseline just p
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Actually, I think this is a neat idea. I tried to do something like it
> for personal use about 18 months ago -- I wanted a one-time snapshot of
> the cygwin-1.3.x baseline just prior to the 1.5.x transition.
>
> But I waited too long (e.g. after packa
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:58:18PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Actually, I think this is a neat idea. I tried to do something like it
>for personal use about 18 months ago -- I wanted a one-time snapshot of
>the cygwin-1.3.x baseline just prior to the 1.5.x transition.
>
>But I waited too long
Actually, I think this is a neat idea. I tried to do something like it
for personal use about 18 months ago -- I wanted a one-time snapshot of
the cygwin-1.3.x baseline just prior to the 1.5.x transition.
But I waited too long (e.g. after packages which required 1.5.x had
"polluted" the server
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Larry Hall wrote:
> At 02:19 AM 1/23/2005, you wrote:
> >I'm probably going to regret this :)
> >
> >For some time, I've been keeping a private mirror of Cygwin for my own
> >personal use. Unlike other mirrors, I've been keeping all of the
> >versions of all packages, along w
At 02:19 AM 1/23/2005, you wrote:
>I'm probably going to regret this :)
>
>For some time, I've been keeping a private mirror of Cygwin for my own
>personal use. Unlike other mirrors, I've been keeping all of the
>versions of all packages, along with a revision of setup.ini to go with
>it.
>
>Now,
25 matches
Mail list logo
