Cygwin bail-out: cygexpat-0.dll not found

Hi, after about 3 years of total cygwin abstinence, I'm back. (I had started with b19 :)) This is most likely a FAQ, but since most people got this DLL in their log files, a bug report or anything like this is very hard to find with the sparse search options given. Error message is "Dynamic

Re: Cygwin bail-out: cygexpat-0.dll not found

Cygwin List schrieb am 16.06.05 01:47:48: > > At 07:18 PM 6/15/2005, you wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >after about 3 years of total cygwin abstinence, I'm back. (I had started > >with b19 :)) > > > >This is most likely a FAQ, but since most people got this DLL in their log > >files, a bug report or

Re: Cygwin bail-out: cygexpat-0.dll not found

cygwin@cygwin.com schrieb am 16.06.05 02:30:07: > > Larry Hall wrote: > > > right package. I'll give you a hint on this one. You want the "expat" > > package. > > And on top of what Larry said, the "expat" package is listed as a > requirement of all the xorg-x11-* packages, so setup.exe shou

Re: Cygwin bail-out: cygexpat-0.dll not found

cygwin@cygwin.com schrieb am 16.06.05 11:09:54: > > Andreas Eibach wrote: > > > Indeed, I was playing around with library packages (clicking them off even > > though I knew package 'xyz' will need the lib, and got no warnings at all). > > If you deselec

Any chance to get Apache 2.0.xx working on cygwin?

OK, install succeeded, now the next important thing starts: Apache 2.0. For a customer, I do need 2.0 and a Unix-ish system, and I actually cannot afford switching back and forth between (real) Linux and Windows, so cygwin will have to do. But 2.0 seems to be required to be patched for cygwin.

Re: Any chance to get Apache 2.0.xx working on cygwin?

Warren Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 16.06.05 20:43:01: > > Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > Maybe google wasn't around in B19 days... > > It wasn't, not really. Google was founded about a month before B20 was > released. True :)

Re: Any chance to get Apache 2.0.xx working on cygwin?

cygwin@cygwin.com schrieb am 16.06.05 17:03:10: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 07:50:59AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: > >Andreas Eibach wrote: > >>This is VERY bad. You can only search for "Apache and 2 and 0 and 54", > >>but not for apache and 2.0

Re: Any chance to get Apache 2.0.xx working on cygwin?

cygwin@cygwin.com schrieb am 16.06.05 16:48:42: > > Nice thing about Apache 2.0.54 is that it compiles OOTB without any errors. > > Nice. > > See the other recent thread. It will probably take some patching to > work. Could you please point me to that one? > Off the top of my head I'd sugg

Sensitive/critical bug found?

It looks that I have. First of all, ALL version numbers of the tools I used: GNU find version 4.2.11 (cvs) GNU xargs version 4.2.11 (cvs) glib version 2.6.5 (the bug might also appear with other packages) Assumed I am in ~/devel. In devel, I do a tar jxvf glib-2.6.5.tar.bz2 and end up with a

Re: Sensitive/critical bug found?

cygwin@cygwin.com schrieb am 18.06.05 00:41:39: > > $ find . -name '*' | xargs grep -i 'threads_got_initialized' > out2.log > > > > ATTENTION. out2.log will grow and grow ... and grew more than 2 GB here, > > until I got a "No space left on device". > > , and

Re: Any chance to get Apache 2.0.xx working on cygwin?

"Gerrit P. Haase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 18.06.05 02:22:11: > > Andreas, > > may I point you to the thread with the subject: > > Date: 04-10-31 14:37 > Subject: httpd-2.0.52 (Apache2) testers wanted / maintainer searched > > -> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-10/msg01447.html >

LS and spaces in path names (the xth)

Yes, this is the umpteenth time this gets asked, but also the umpteenth plead to fix this in cygwin (as it _definitely_ works in Linux, also with vfat and non-Linux partitions!!) I have two files in ~, say they're CD0.dat CD1 - Multimedia (foo1).dat CD2 - Multimedia2 (foo2).dat +

Byte-order in od -x (Win2K)

Well, looks like a feature or a bug. :)) $ ls -hog CD0.dat -rw-r--r-- 1 0 Jun 28 14:46 CD0.dat (minus r; w minus; r minus; minus r; minus minus) and now ... $ ls -hog CD0.dat | od -x 722d 2d77 2d72 722d Definitely wrong byte order. In human readable format: (r minus; minus w; minu

Issue with setup.exe 2.573.2.3? (experimental mode)

Hi there, can anyone please tell me what I'm doing wrong here? I'm *quite* sure that with previous versions, it was possible to select Experimental mode instead of 'Current' and be able to install ALL packages. Actually I do _not_ want all, but since somehow it does not work to select "Install" i

Re: Issue with setup.exe 2.573.2.3? (experimental mode)

- Original Message - From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:20 AM Subject: Re: Issue with setup.exe 2.573.2.3? (experimental mode) > Andreas Eibach wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > can anyone ple

[cairo] Compile error on Cygwin with current GIT tree

[cc on cygwin list for recognition] Greetings, I've just got a cairo compiling error on my Cygwin setup. - Windows 2000 SP4 - latest Cygwin - sufficiently recent GTK+ (<- supposed to get updated, but no latest GTK+ without cairo) It seems the problem is that it does not know about the fwprintf(

Re: cygwin and cygwin-xfree lists to merge

Will Parsons wrote: > You may not consider it a compelling argument, but I find the traffic on > the cygwin list more than enough already, and am glad I don't have to > bother about the cygwin-xfree traffic. I'd prefer to keep things as > is. But on xfree, there IS NO traffic! Just check the arch

Re: GTK+ externals are unresolved

- Original Message - From: "John Emmas" To: Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:45 PM Subject: Re: GTK+ externals are unresolved > Perhaps you're missing the file 'libgtk-x11-2.0.la' (it should be in /lib/). > Try linking to 'libgtk-x11-2.0.dll.a' temporarily. If that works, you might