Re: new setup.exe doesn't collapse package sets in full view.

On 12/13/2016 6:02 PM, Stephen Paul Carrier wrote: I downloaded the new setup program (2.877, 32-bit) and ran it on a cygwin installation that hadn't been updated in over a year (2008R2). I first got the Pending view, OK, then switched to Full and found that the packages were not aggregated into

Re: new setup.exe - another problem, or is this behavior expected?

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: (snip) > > Either should work OK, as the former is a superset of the latter. The key > thing is to not pick more than 1 mirror if you don't need to. Heh, I wasn't even aware that the list of mirrors is multi-select, and I used it daily

Re: new setup.exe - another problem, or is this behavior expected?

On 2/28/2014 10:05 AM, carolus wrote: On 2/27/2014 5:36 PM, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: , if you start one session of setup, select a package, download it, and don't install it (for whatever reason), then start another setup session and do the same thing with a with a different mirror, you'll get

Re: new setup.exe - another problem, or is this behavior expected?

On 2/27/2014 5:36 PM, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: , if you start one session of setup, select a package, download it, and don't install it (for whatever reason), then start another setup session and do the same thing with a with a different mirror, you'll get the same package again under a differe

Re: new setup.exe - another problem, or is this behavior expected?

On 2/27/2014 12:44 PM, carolus wrote: On my last download, a few days ago, when the initial server became unresponsive, the setup process simply hung up even though I had selected several alternate servers. After waiting a while, I terminated and restarted the process but again the process hung

Re: setup and mintty (was Re: New setup.exe release?)

On May 25 22:48, Thomas Wolff wrote: > Am 25.05.2011 20:05, schrieb Ryan Johnson: > >On 25/05/2011 12:55 PM, Andy Koppe wrote: > >>On 25 May 2011 17:13, Ryan Johnson wrote: > >>>How do you get mintty to see Liberation Mono? I downloaded the > >>>family from > >>>redhat, installed it on my w7-x64 ma

Re: setup and mintty (was Re: New setup.exe release?)

On 5/25/2011 12:52 PM, Andy Koppe wrote: > On 25 May 2011 16:26, Charles Wilson wrote: >> On 5/25/2011 1:17 AM, Andy Koppe wrote: >>> On 25 May 2011 05:32, Charles Wilson wrote: > Maybe when I get home I'll test out a few... > > Consolas > Andale Mono > Courier New > Lucida

Re: setup and mintty (was Re: New setup.exe release?)

On 5/25/2011 1:17 AM, Andy Koppe wrote: > Consolas on Windows 7 indeed is much improved. In the original thread over on cygwin-apps, I had written: > Yep, works fine with Lucida Console. I was using Consolas, which IMO > looks better...but yep, it appears to be missing the glyphs -- although > r

Re: setup and mintty (was Re: New setup.exe release?)

Am 25.05.2011 20:05, schrieb Ryan Johnson: On 25/05/2011 12:55 PM, Andy Koppe wrote: On 25 May 2011 17:13, Ryan Johnson wrote: On 25/05/2011 11:54 AM, KHMan wrote: On 5/25/2011 11:26 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: On 5/25/2011 1:17 AM, Andy Koppe wrote: On 25 May 2011 05:32, Charles Wilson wrote:

Re: setup and mintty (was Re: New setup.exe release?)

On 25/05/2011 12:55 PM, Andy Koppe wrote: On 25 May 2011 17:13, Ryan Johnson wrote: On 25/05/2011 11:54 AM, KHMan wrote: On 5/25/2011 11:26 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: On 5/25/2011 1:17 AM, Andy Koppe wrote: On 25 May 2011 05:32, Charles Wilson wrote: Maybe when I get home I'll test out a few.

Re: setup and mintty (was Re: New setup.exe release?)

On 25 May 2011 17:13, Ryan Johnson wrote: > On 25/05/2011 11:54 AM, KHMan wrote: >> >> On 5/25/2011 11:26 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: >>> >>> On 5/25/2011 1:17 AM, Andy Koppe wrote: On 25 May 2011 05:32, Charles Wilson wrote: >> >> Maybe when I get home I'll test out a few... >>

Re: setup and mintty (was Re: New setup.exe release?)

On 25 May 2011 16:26, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 5/25/2011 1:17 AM, Andy Koppe wrote: >> On 25 May 2011 05:32, Charles Wilson wrote: Maybe when I get home I'll test out a few... Consolas Andale Mono Courier New Lucida Console Vera Sans Mono (or DejaVu LGC Sans) >>

Re: setup and mintty (was Re: New setup.exe release?)

On 5/26/2011 12:13 AM, Ryan Johnson wrote: On 25/05/2011 11:54 AM, KHMan wrote: On 5/25/2011 11:26 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: On 5/25/2011 1:17 AM, Andy Koppe wrote: On 25 May 2011 05:32, Charles Wilson wrote: Maybe when I get home I'll test out a few... Consolas Andale Mono Courier New Lucid

Re: setup and mintty (was Re: New setup.exe release?)

On 25/05/2011 11:54 AM, KHMan wrote: On 5/25/2011 11:26 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: On 5/25/2011 1:17 AM, Andy Koppe wrote: On 25 May 2011 05:32, Charles Wilson wrote: Maybe when I get home I'll test out a few... Consolas Andale Mono Courier New Lucida Console Vera Sans Mono (or DejaVu LGC Sans

Re: setup and mintty (was Re: New setup.exe release?)

On 5/25/2011 11:26 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: On 5/25/2011 1:17 AM, Andy Koppe wrote: On 25 May 2011 05:32, Charles Wilson wrote: Maybe when I get home I'll test out a few... Consolas Andale Mono Courier New Lucida Console Vera Sans Mono (or DejaVu LGC Sans) Droid Sans Mono Inconsolata ... FY

Re: setup and mintty (was Re: New setup.exe release?)

On 5/25/2011 1:17 AM, Andy Koppe wrote: > On 25 May 2011 05:32, Charles Wilson wrote: >>> Maybe when I get home I'll test out a few... >>> >>> Consolas >>> Andale Mono >>> Courier New >>> Lucida Console >>> Vera Sans Mono (or DejaVu LGC Sans) >>> Droid Sans Mono >>> Inconsolata >>> ... >> >> FYI: >

Re: setup and mintty (was Re: New setup.exe release?)

On 25 May 2011 05:32, Charles Wilson wrote: >> Maybe when I get home I'll test out a few... >> >> Consolas >> Andale Mono >> Courier New >> Lucida Console >> Vera Sans Mono (or DejaVu LGC Sans) >> Droid Sans Mono >> Inconsolata >> ... > > FYI: > http://cygutils.fruitbat.org/mintty-font-test/ Good

Re: New setup.exe?

As seen from lists.cygwin, on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:24:06 +, Greg Chicares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 2007-12-13 11:07Z, Jeff wrote: >> Setup.exe is currently at 510, but setup.ini at several mirrors is >> telling me that there is a ver. 573 available. ??? > >I downloaded it just now via the

Re: New setup.exe?

On 2007-12-13 11:07Z, Jeff wrote: > Setup.exe is currently at 510, but setup.ini at several mirrors is > telling me that there is a ver. 573 available. ??? I downloaded it just now via the "Install Cygwin now" link here: http://cygwin.com/ and I got version 2.573.2.2 . Where are you getting it f

Re: new setup.exe not as reliable as old

Linda Walsh wrote: What was supposed to change in the new setup, anyway? Is there a URL for the Changelog? -- Matthew "A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in." --Kim Alm, A.S.R. -- Unsubscribe info: http:/

Re: New setup.exe snapshot - please test

I test this snapshot and the different problems linked to the thread under disappeared http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-xfree/2004-11/msg00192.html Thanks for your work B.Patin -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Do

Re: New setup.exe snapshot - please test

Thomas Dickey schrieb: On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Max Bowsher wrote: Version 2.457.2.1 - Fix setup keeping open handles to every tarball it installs during a run. (Which appears to have been indirectly responsible for the weird hangs people have been experiencing.) Is there a bugzilla or other track

Re: New setup.exe snapshot - please test

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Max Bowsher wrote: Version 2.457.2.1 - Fix setup keeping open handles to every tarball it installs during a run. (Which appears to have been indirectly responsible for the weird hangs people have been experiencing.) Is there a bugzilla or other tracking tool for setup.exe ?

Re: New setup.exe - unhandled exception more problem packages

John P. Rouillard wrote: Hi all: In an earlier email I sent in the details on an unhandled exception that I received while trying up update some packages. It originally occurred with the package: pkgs/http%3a%2f%2fmirrors.rcn.net%2fpub%2fsourceware%2fcygwin/release/cmake/cmake-1.8.3-1.tar.bz2.bad T

Re: New setup.exe release candidate - unhandled exception

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >From: "Max Bowsher" >Subject: New setup.exe release candidate - please test > [...] >http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/setup-2.459.exe > [...] >Please test - if no regressions are discovered in the next few days, it will I am getting

Re: New setup.exe release candidate - please test

> http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/setup-2.459.exe > ... this release appears in my testing to fix the hang > when a new install-everything setup is attempted, > as side-effect of other bugfixes. Yes, confirmed. New-install-all-in-one worked with XP SP2 on two machines. Fergus -- Unsubscrib

Re: New setup.exe release candidate - please test

Max Bowsher wrote: Version 2.459 Updated cygwin to 1.5.12-1 (finally), it seems to work ok on my main devel box which is an NT4 system. Gerrit -- =^..^= -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation:

RE: New setup.exe release candidate - please test

Installed the latest coreutils OK. -- Gary R. Van Sickle > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Max Bowsher > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 1:29 PM > To: cygwin@cygwin.com > Subject: New setup.exe release candidate - please test >

Re: New setup.exe snapshot available.

On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 02:41, Hans Horn wrote: > A look at setup.ini that was newly created, revealed the following: > > setup-timestamp: 1047304219 > setup-version: 2.249.2.5 > > Looks like stale cheese, doesn't it? Not at all. You appear to be making an assumption that is incorrect. The setu

Re: New setup.exe snapshot available.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Hans Horn wrote: > for some I had expected that this setup version (2.326) would be resizable - > or at least sporting a bigger dialog. > I guess I was wrong. Yes. A bigger dialog is coming soon. Resizablility is still in the future. > A look at setup.ini that was newly cr

Re: New setup.exe snapshot available.

Dear all, for some I had expected that this setup version (2.326) would be resizable - or at least sporting a bigger dialog. I guess I was wrong. A look at setup.ini that was newly created, revealed the following: setup-timestamp: 1047304219 setup-version: 2.249.2.5 Looks like stale cheese, doe

Re: New setup.exe snapshot available.

At 11:23 AM 3/9/2003 +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >There is a new setup.exe snapshot. It's a minor increment over the >current setup. >From an ntsec point of view it tries to insure that the file permissions *displayed* by ls -l allow at least rx access. When running the new snapshot, please be

Re: New setup.exe beta

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> But: clicking on the gizmo to change from "All Default" to >>> "All Install" caused such a long pause that eventually I >>> checked to see what was happening. Answer: >>> "Setup Options [not responding]". It happened identically >>> at a second atte

Re: New setup.exe beta.

Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Leading. I meant leading (line 1). Leading linefeed. Ah, empty lines are not allowed in the header. I'll have a look tonight. Thanks, Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien

Re: New setup.exe beta.

On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 23:54, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Has the timestamp definition changed? > > > > No, but the entry to the packages area has, your trailing linefeed Leading. I meant leading (line 1). Rob -- --- GPG key available at: http://

Re: New setup.exe beta.

Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Has the timestamp definition changed? > > No, but the entry to the packages area has, your trailing linefeed :-) > is the likely culprit. Forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand the concept of `trailing linefeed'. Do you mean that whitespace

Re: New setup.exe beta.

> directory (havent tried the other modes yet). Look for a line which looks > like this > in the attached setup.log file: Sorry, forgot the attachments :( -- +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++ NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen! setup.log Des

Re: New setup.exe beta.

Hello, > We're at that time again, where your testing directly influences the > quality of setup.exe that you get to run. > > So, > at http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/ there is a new setup.exe > snapshot, that is (as far as we know) devoid of major bugs. 1. If i try to install from local d

Re: New setup.exe beta

>> But: clicking on the gizmo to change from "All Default" to >> "All Install" caused such a long pause that eventually I >> checked to see what was happening. Answer: >> "Setup Options [not responding]". It happened identically >> at a second attempt. Extended pause with nothing at the end >> of i

Re: New setup.exe beta.

On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 09:09, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Has the timestamp definition changed? No, but the entry to the packages area has, your trailing linefeed is the likely culprit. I had some hairy stuff happening at one point, and the unlimited \

Re: New setup.exe beta.

Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, > at http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/ there is a new setup.exe > snapshot, that is (as far as we know) devoid of major bugs. > Please, please, try this setup.exe out and tell us what you think. It works fine, but I do get this error message:

RE: New setup.exe beta.

> From: Robert Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 01:33, John Morrison wrote: > > Can't you get the number of files from setup.ini? > > Not if there isn't one, which is still (grudglingly) supported. > Also, for *any* sort of accuracy, how many files are there is needed, >

Re: New setup.exe beta

On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 07:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Tried it twice again: full install from scratch but this time from a Local > Directory. Now the MD5 check took place, as Igor said it would. Everything > passed. > > Base install works fine. > > But: clicking on the gizmo to change from "All

Re: New setup.exe beta.

On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 01:33, John Morrison wrote: > Can't you get the number of files from setup.ini? Not if there isn't one, which is still (grudglingly) supported. Also, for *any* sort of accuracy, how many files are there is needed, otherwise my 8000 entry test file will spend more time updat

Re: New setup.exe beta and the elusive MD5 sum (Re: New setup.exebeta)

On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 05:03, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > This question has come up more than once already, so I'll take a stab at > the answer: > The explicit MD5 sum check, IIUC, is performed only when doing Install > from Local Directory to make sure the external tools did not corrupt the > downlo

Re: New setup.exe beta

Tried it twice again: full install from scratch but this time from a Local Directory. Now the MD5 check took place, as Igor said it would. Everything passed. Base install works fine. But: clicking on the gizmo to change from "All Default" to "All Install" caused such a long pause* that eventually

New setup.exe beta and the elusive MD5 sum (Re: New setup.exe beta)

This question has come up more than once already, so I'll take a stab at the answer: The explicit MD5 sum check, IIUC, is performed only when doing Install from Local Directory to make sure the external tools did not corrupt the downloads. If Install from the Internet is performed, the MD5 sum che

Re: New setup.exe beta.

Tried it on three machines, one to upgrade packages (cygwin, tcsh) one to just add a few things and one for a new install all as install from internet. upgrade went fine on windows 2k pro (well it still works :) adding went fine (win 2k pro) (well from a quick test of added apps) clean install on w

Re: New setup.exe beta.

On 26 Nov 2002, Robert Collins wrote: > On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 00:26, John Morrison wrote: > > Congratulations to all :) > > > > I've tried it and a couple of collegues (I > > ran the net installation they ran local). Nobody > > found anything wrong. There was, however, one > > suggestion; they li

Re: New setup.exe beta

I've tried it twice. Both brand new installations after removing all previous traces of Cygwin including registry entries. First time: just install base. Second time: just install base, then run setup again (i.e. as "update" really) and install half a dozen additional extras. Faultless both times.

Re: New setup.exe beta.

On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 00:26, John Morrison wrote: > Congratulations to all :) > > I've tried it and a couple of collegues (I > ran the net installation they ran local). Nobody > found anything wrong. There was, however, one > suggestion; they liked the progress for MD5 but > they wanted an overa

Re: New setup.exe beta.

Congratulations to all :) I've tried it and a couple of collegues (I ran the net installation they ran local). Nobody found anything wrong. There was, however, one suggestion; they liked the progress for MD5 but they wanted an overall progress in addition to one for each package (and they wanted

RE: New setup.exe 2.218.2.9 available (was Postinstall not working, setup.exe 2.218.2.8)

> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 3:38 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: New setup.exe 2.218.2.9 available (was > Postinstall not working, setup.exe 2.218.2.8) > > > On Thu,

Re: New setup.exe 2.218.2.9 available (was Postinstall not working, setup.exe 2.218.2.8)

On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 01:35:49AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:30:07AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: I ran the scripts manually, but there is something else missing. Any ideas or help would be greatly appreciated! >>> >>>It's a bug. I'll be doin

RE: New SETUP.EXE

> -Original Message- > From: Gaethofs, Danny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 7:48 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: New SETUP.EXE > > > Dear all, > > I have installed the new setup 2.125.2.10 and I am installing > new binaries from one of the mirror s

RE: New Setup.exe

Hrmmm... -rw-rw-rw-1 prentis Domain A 5060 Mar 18 19:23 bcs_1.4.tar.bz2 @ bcs sdesc: "Baseline Configuration System, Internet Services" category: Base requires: cygwin bash openssh binutils version: 1.4 install: latest/bcs/bcs_1.4.tar.bz2 5060 -rwxrwxrwx1 Administ Domain U4889

RE: New Setup.exe

> -Original Message- > From: Prentis Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:50 AM > Neither of these install under the new setup, nor do they > appear in any of the lists, ideas? Previous setup still > works with this. Is the size exactly right? The n

Re: new setup.exe snapshot

=== - Original Message - From: "Michael Adler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:12 AM Subject: new setup.exe snapshot > > I just tried v2.185 of the new setup.exe, and I noticed a potential > glitch. > > If you specify an alternative URL an

Re: New setup.exe snapshot

- Original Message - From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 19:32 Subject: RE: New setup.exe snapshot > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE

RE: New setup.exe snapshot

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf > Of Robert Collins [snip] > > - Original Message - > From: "John A. Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [snip] > > o if the window gets covered up, clicking on its button on the > > taskbar doesn't br

Re: New setup.exe and crashes

- Original Message - From: "John P. Rouillard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >I've uploaded a new setup.exe that shouldn't crash on *anything*. If you > >have time please give it a shot. > > I have successfully used it to download and install openssh from > http://mirrors.rcn.net with WinNT 4.0SP

Re: New setup.exe snapshot

=== - Original Message - From: "Charles Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I believe this is now *really* fixed, and a new setup snapshot is at > > http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/ > > > FYI, this version still crashes if you click the "Add" User URL button, > but haven't typed anythi

Re: New setup.exe snapshot

Robert Collins wrote: > > I believe this is now *really* fixed, and a new setup snapshot is at > http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/ FYI, this version still crashes if you click the "Add" User URL button, but haven't typed anything into the entry box. --Chuck -- Unsubscribe info:

Re: New setup.exe snapshot

=== - Original Message - From: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > VC++ debugger reports exception code=0xc005, flags=0x, > > Address=0x0041e53e > > > > If you wish I can give you a memory dump! > > Don't worry - we've had on person reporting a memory crash on XP,

Re: New setup.exe snapshot

- Original Message - From: "John A. Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Robert Collins wrote: > > > Any and all testing/feedback is needed. > > I've been using it for a while, and have a bit of feedback... Thank you. > o if the window gets covered up, clicking on its button on the > taskba

Re: New setup.exe snapshot

Robert Collins wrote: > Any and all testing/feedback is needed. I've been using it for a while, and have a bit of feedback... o if the window gets covered up, clicking on its button on the taskbar doesn't bring it back to the top like it does with other apps o it seems to crash on certain

RE: New setup.exe snapshot

Robert Collins > Sent: 22 January 2002 09:54 > To: David Starks-Browning > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: New setup.exe snapshot > > The usual place: http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots > > Rob > === > - Original Message - > From: "David St

Re: New setup.exe snapshot

The usual place: http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots Rob === - Original Message - From: "David Starks-Browning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 8:44 PM Subject: New setup.exe snapshot > On Tuesday 22