On Jun 19 04:25, Andrey Repin wrote:
> Greetings, Corinna Vinschen!
>
> >> Out of curiosity would downloading setup.exe using wget also work
> >> around the problem?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Most likely. I don't think wget cares about protecting Windows users
> >> >>>from their own stupidity. I
Greetings, Corinna Vinschen!
>> Out of curiosity would downloading setup.exe using wget also work
>> around the problem?
>> >>>
>> >>>Most likely. I don't think wget cares about protecting Windows users
>> >>>from their own stupidity. If you use wget, you should know what you're
>> >>>d
On Jun 14 22:45, Andrey Repin wrote:
> Greetings, Vaclav Zeman!
>
> Out of curiosity would downloading setup.exe using wget also work
> around the problem?
> >>>
> >>>Most likely. I don't think wget cares about protecting Windows users
> >>>from their own stupidity. If you use wget, you
Greetings, Vaclav Zeman!
Out of curiosity would downloading setup.exe using wget also work
around the problem?
>>>
>>>Most likely. I don't think wget cares about protecting Windows users
>>>from their own stupidity. If you use wget, you should know what you're
>>>doing.
>>>
>>>How about
On 6/12/2012 7:08 PM, Roger K. Wells wrote:
On 06/12/2012 11:10 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:46 AM, James Johnston wrote:
Wikipedia says that ...
Wikipedia isn't the keeper of the information relevant to Cygwin. You
can only find the truth at cygwin.com. Besides, compa
On 06/12/2012 11:10 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:46 AM, James Johnston wrote:
Wikipedia says that ...
Wikipedia isn't the keeper of the information relevant to Cygwin. You
can only find the truth at cygwin.com. Besides, companies do support
open source projects by provi
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 09:32:00AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>On 06/12/2012 09:12 AM, Nick Lowe wrote:
>> http://cygwin.com/
>>
>> "The Cygwin DLL and utilities are Copyright ? 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003,
>> 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 Red Hat, Inc"
>
>Yes, that's true for the
On 06/12/2012 09:12 AM, Nick Lowe wrote:
> http://cygwin.com/
>
> "The Cygwin DLL and utilities are Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003,
> 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 Red Hat, Inc"
Yes, that's true for the cygwin1.dll. But it's not all the executables
available from cygwi
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 04:12:58PM +0100, Nick Lowe wrote:
>http://cygwin.com/
>
>"The Cygwin DLL and utilities are Copyright ? 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003,
>2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 Red Hat, Inc"
The version of Cygwin supported at cygwin.com is a GPL-based free
software pro
http://cygwin.com/
"The Cygwin DLL and utilities are Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003,
2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 Red Hat, Inc"
> Wikipedia isn't the keeper of the information relevant to Cygwin. You
> can only find the truth at cygwin.com. Besides, companies do supp
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:46 AM, James Johnston wrote:
> Wikipedia says that ...
Wikipedia isn't the keeper of the information relevant to Cygwin. You
can only find the truth at cygwin.com. Besides, companies do support
open source projects by providing man hours to it. It doesn't mean
that t
To me, the key question is:
Would Red Hat have an objection in principle to signing Cygwin and its
packages given the history and ties.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubs
> >Red Hat might not have to buy a code signing cert for this. They might
> >already have one that will work: http://goo.gl/5Hm3C
>
> The Cygwin project is not Red Hat. It wouldn't be "Red Hat" buying
anything.
What is the Cygwin project then? I honestly thought it was a Red Hat
project... I.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 06:57:45AM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
>On 6/9/2012 9:57 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>and I'm really not willing to burden cygwin.com with the cycles
>>necessary to unpack tarballs at cygwin.com to sign them.
>
>Based on the traffic I see to cygwin-apps, my sense is that t
On 6/9/2012 9:57 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
and I'm really
not willing to burden cygwin.com with the cycles necessary to unpack
tarballs at cygwin.com to sign them.
Based on the traffic I see to cygwin-apps, my sense is that this would
amount to single-digit CPU-minutes per day, once you g
Christopher Faylor sent the following at Monday, June 11, 2012 10:56 AM
>On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 04:51:07PM +0200, Otto Meta wrote:
>>cgf wrote:
>>> Out of curiosity would downloading setup.exe using wget also work
>>>around the problem?
>>
>>Most likely. I don't think wget cares about protecting
On 11 June 2012 16:55, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 04:51:07PM +0200, Otto Meta wrote:
>>cgf wrote:
>>> Out of curiosity would downloading setup.exe using wget also work
>>>around the problem?
>>
>>Most likely. I don't think wget cares about protecting Windows users
>>from t
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 04:51:07PM +0200, Otto Meta wrote:
>cgf wrote:
>> Out of curiosity would downloading setup.exe using wget also work
>>around the problem?
>
>Most likely. I don't think wget cares about protecting Windows users
>from their own stupidity. If you use wget, you should know wha
> Out of curiosity would downloading setup.exe using wget also work
> around the problem?
Most likely. I don't think wget cares about protecting Windows users
from their own stupidity. If you use wget, you should know what you're
doing.
How about you just give it a try?
Otto
--
Problem report
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 04:44:46PM +0200, Otto Meta wrote:
>> This is because of the file being downloaded from the web (check file streams
>
>> for details).
>> You can easily cleanup the file metadata by copying it to FAT drive (Flash
>> disk/memory card).
>
>
>The file stream with the "downloade
> This is because of the file being downloaded from the web (check file streams
> for details).
> You can easily cleanup the file metadata by copying it to FAT drive (Flash
> disk/memory card).
The file stream with the "downloaded from the web" information can
easily be removed with the Stream t
Andrey Repin sent the following at Monday, June 11, 2012 10:03 AM
>This is because of the file being downloaded from the web (check file
>streams for details). You can easily cleanup the file metadata by
>copying it to FAT drive (Flash disk/memory card).
It worked!
For the record, I had to delete
Greetings, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E]!
> I have setup.exe downloaded to /usr/local/bin (and renamed to
> getcygwin.exe). When I launch it by hand (but not by cmd /c start),
> Windows tells me that the publisher could not be verified and asks
> whether I want to run it.
This is because of
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E] wrote:
> I have setup.exe downloaded to /usr/local/bin (and renamed to
> getcygwin.exe). When I launch it by hand (but not by cmd /c start),
> Windows tells me that the publisher could not be verified and asks
> whether I want to r
I have setup.exe downloaded to /usr/local/bin (and renamed to
getcygwin.exe). When I launch it by hand (but not by cmd /c start),
Windows tells me that the publisher could not be verified and asks
whether I want to run it. This is a minor annoyance but it would be
nice if it could be addressed wi
On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 01:04:37PM +0200, V?clav Zeman wrote:
>On 06/08/2012 08:46 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 02:15:27PM -0400, Milton Quinteros S. wrote:
>>>Would you consider the possibility to subscribe to the Comodo Trusted
>>>Software Vendor list
>>>(http://intern
On 06/08/2012 08:46 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 02:15:27PM -0400, Milton Quinteros S. wrote:
>> Would you consider the possibility to subscribe to the Comodo Trusted
>> Software Vendor list
>> (http://internetsecurity.comodo.com/trustedvendor/signup.php), and sign
>> eve
27 matches
Mail list logo
