Re: Minor Bug in setup.exe for Cygwin 1.7.17-1

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Bailey T. Furrow wrote: > I noticed a minor bug when updating/installing packages, where the > percentage completed and the Total progress bar are way off than how much is > actually done, giving me percentages that should be impossible. Last night, > the progress b

Minor Bug in setup.exe for Cygwin 1.7.17-1

I noticed a minor bug when updating/installing packages, where the percentage completed and the Total progress bar are way off than how much is actually done, giving me percentages that should be impossible. Last night, the progress bar was completely filled in and the percentage completed was

Re: Possible bug in setup.exe (checking for pre-requisites)

On 02/01/2011 15:30, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote: > I'm re-installing Cygwin from scratch, using the latest setup.exe on a > Windows 7 64-bit system > > I had downloaded and installed gcc4, then discovered I had failed to > download the corresponding g++ package. I ran "setup -M" and selected > gcc4-g

Possible bug in setup.exe (checking for pre-requisites)

I'm re-installing Cygwin from scratch, using the latest setup.exe on a Windows 7 64-bit system I had downloaded and installed gcc4, then discovered I had failed to download the corresponding g++ package. I ran "setup -M" and selected gcc4-g++. When setup tried to check for dependencies, it got i

Help with proftpd configuration for local Cygwin package repo or bug in setup.exe.

I run proftpd 1.3.0-19 on Debian Etch where I put by rsync Cygwin package mirror. When I run setup.exe: setup.exe --quiet-mode --only-site --site ftp://192.168.1.38/cygwin --packages emacs it stop on: Starting cygwin install, version 2.697 io_stream_cygfile: fopen(/etc/setup/net-proxy-host)

Re: Bug in setup.exe

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 09:52:31AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Feb 15 06:44, Jan Obrestad wrote: >>I have discovered a bug in setup.exe version 2.682. >> >>I tried installing cygwin 1.7.1 on windows 7 x64. It failed with the >>error message: >> >>Un

Re: Bug in setup.exe

On Feb 15 06:44, Jan Obrestad wrote: > I have discovered a bug in setup.exe version 2.682. > > I tried installing cygwin 1.7.1 on windows 7 x64. > It failed with the error message: > > Unable to extract /etc/ -- the file is in use. > > Which was a bit weird since th

Bug in setup.exe

I have discovered a bug in setup.exe version 2.682. I tried installing cygwin 1.7.1 on windows 7 x64. It failed with the error message: Unable to extract /etc/ -- the file is in use. Which was a bit weird since the directory didn't exist yet. The log message was a bit more clear it

RE: Bug in setup.exe install

Arthur Schwarz wrote: One known weakness of setup.exe is when deselecting things with complex patterns of dependencies. You might get better results from starting by using the 'Keep' radio button, to select nothing for installation, and then *adding* packages you want upgraded. Setting all op

RE: Bug in setup.exe install

Arthur Schwarz wrote: > For the last 2+ years I've been unable to upgrade Cygwin on my Win2K > system without reinstalling from scratch. This has periodically been > mentioned by other users. I may have found at least one case for a > failure. Apparently Install.cc:do_install_thread passes a zero l

[Fwd: Re: bug in setup.exe?]

: [It depends on what email client you use to read with -- if one is using a GUI, the top of the message is displayed first. This forces "scrolling" (or turning) to the last page of an email -- reading it in reverse order...how lame is that? Even if you use a tty mode email interfa

Re: bug in setup.exe?

On Feb 8 18:18, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > Eric, > > Please make sure your mailer honors the Reply-To: field. I set it for a > reason. Thanks. > > I've also reformatted your top-posted message. Top-posting is rather > annoying -- if you can possibly avoid it, please do. > [...] and then ther

RE: bug in setup.exe?

nal Message- > > From: Igor Pechtchanski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 2:59 PM > > To: Swenson, Eric > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTNQREAIYR>. Thanks. > > Subject: Re: bug in setup.exe? > > > &

RE: bug in setup.exe?

: Igor Pechtchanski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 2:59 PM > To: Swenson, Eric > Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com > Subject: Re: bug in setup.exe? > > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Swenson, Eric wrote: > > > I've run into the following situatio

Re: bug in setup.exe?

uccessfully. > > Can anyone in the "know" tell me how this is supposed to work? This is indeed a (known, long-standing) bug in setup.exe. The problem is that some packages have pre-remove scripts that prepare a package for removal. These scripts are run when the packages are remov

bug in setup.exe?

I've run into the following situation on several machines now, at multiple times -- each with different versions of cygwin (so I'm not following the bug reporting procedure as I think the version information provided by cygcheck isn't really relevant and as I'm currently in a non-cygwin-working sta

Re: bug in setup.exe for postgresql-7.3.4-1[Scanned]

> > 3) Looked at postgres.exe. > > > > $ ls -l /usr/bin/postgre* > > -rwxr-x---+ 1 OwnerUsers 1985024 Aug 1 16:02 > > /usr/bin/postgres.exe > > The permissions of postgres.exe is correct in the tarball: > > $ tar -tvjf postgresql-7.3.4-1.tar.bz2 usr/bin/postgres.exe >

RE: bug in setup.exe for postgresql-7.3.4-1[Scanned]

On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 07:03, Seth Rubin wrote: > Dunno. I just ran cygwin's standard setup (i.e. "install now" from > website). Well, If you can find out - for example by trying - then I can analyse the problem further. Cheers, Rob -- GPG key available at:

Re: bug in setup.exe for postgresql-7.3.4-1[Scanned]

On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 21:35, Jason Tishler wrote: Well, given the brief feedback on my request, I can only really guess. My WAG is that setup needs the cygwin ntsec acl conversion logic ported to it, along with some method to determine whether it should use it or not. Cheers, Rob -- GPG key ava

Re: bug in setup.exe for postgresql-7.3.4-1

On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 21:35, Jason Tishler wrote: Well, given the brief feedback on my request, I can only really guess. My WAG is that setup needs the cygwin ntsec acl conversion logic ported to it, along with some method to determine whether it should use it or not. Cheers, Rob -- GPG key ava

Re: bug in setup.exe for postgresql-7.3.4-1

Jason Tishler wrote: > Max, > > On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:58:07AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: >> Jason Tishler wrote: >>> Is there any way to solve this problem without me adding a >>> postinstall script that performs a "chmod +rx" on all *.exe and >>> *.dll files installed by this packages? >> >> Y

Re: bug in setup.exe for postgresql-7.3.4-1

Jason Tishler wrote: > On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:25:43AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: >> Seth Rubin wrote: >>> Myself (and Jason) are thinking there's an issue with the cygwin >>> setup. Maybe I'm being naive, but all this seems is an issue with >>> chmod and/or copy not being done properly on the p

Re: bug in setup.exe for postgresql-7.3.4-1

Rob, On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 09:36:57PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > Well, given the brief feedback on my request, I can only really guess. Seth provided the following: On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 07:19:16PM -0400, Seth Rubin wrote: > The cygwin setup installed postgres.exe with 700 bits,

Re: bug in setup.exe for postgresql-7.3.4-1

Max, On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:58:07AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: > Jason Tishler wrote: > > Is there any way to solve this problem without me adding a > > postinstall script that performs a "chmod +rx" on all *.exe and > > *.dll files installed by this packages? > > Yes. PTC for setup. Would th

Re: bug in setup.exe for postgresql-7.3.4-1

On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:25:43AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: > Seth Rubin wrote: > > Myself (and Jason) are thinking there's an issue with the cygwin > > setup. Maybe I'm being naive, but all this seems is an issue with > > chmod and/or copy not being done properly on the postgres.exe file > > dur

Re: bug in setup.exe for postgresql-7.3.4-1

Seth Rubin wrote: > The cygwin setup installed postgres.exe with 700 bits, not 755 mode bits. > The tarball has 755 bits set. An extract from the tarball, with -xvf or > xpvf extracts in mode 755. > > Myself (and Jason) are thinking there's an issue with the cygwin setup. > Maybe I'm being naive,

RE: bug in setup.exe for postgresql-7.3.4-1

in; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bug in setup.exe for postgresql-7.3.4-1 Seth Rubin wrote: > Jason suggested I forward this > > -- Seth Rubin >ThoughtProcess Techology LLC > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf

RE: bug in setup.exe for postgresql-7.3.4-1

On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 07:03, Seth Rubin wrote: > Dunno. I just ran cygwin's standard setup (i.e. "install now" from > website). Well, If you can find out - for example by trying - then I can analyse the problem further. Cheers, Rob -- GPG key available at:

RE: bug in setup.exe for postgresql-7.3.4-1

Dunno. I just ran cygwin's standard setup (i.e. "install now" from website). -Original Message- From: Robert Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 3:34 AM To: Seth Rubin Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bug in setup.exe for postgresql-7.3.4-1

Re: bug in setup.exe for postgresql-7.3.4-1

> > 3) Looked at postgres.exe. > > > > $ ls -l /usr/bin/postgre* > > -rwxr-x---+ 1 OwnerUsers 1985024 Aug 1 16:02 > > /usr/bin/postgres.exe > > The permissions of postgres.exe is correct in the tarball: > > $ tar -tvjf postgresql-7.3.4-1.tar.bz2 usr/bin/postgres.exe >

Re: bug in setup.exe for postgresql-7.3.4-1

Seth Rubin wrote: > Jason suggested I forward this > > -- Seth Rubin >ThoughtProcess Techology LLC > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jason Tishler > Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 10:46 AM > To: Seth Rubin > Cc: Pgsql-Cygwin > Subjec

bug in setup.exe for postgresql-7.3.4-1

Jason suggested I forward this -- Seth Rubin ThoughtProcess Techology LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jason Tishler Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 10:46 AM To: Seth Rubin Cc: Pgsql-Cygwin Subject: Re: [CYGWIN] Updated Cygwin Package:

Re: Bug in setup.exe v 2.249.2.5

Max Bowsher wrote: > > and see if that changes anything. The scroll bars in that version > > appear to work fine on my Win2k system. > > There have been no changes related to this issue. > > It is a Microsoft bug causing this. Avoiding it would require re-writing a > significant portion of setup

Re: Bug in setup.exe v 2.249.2.5

Brian Keener wrote: > Arturs Aboltins wrote: >> setup.exe is missing scrollbars in site list as well as in >> installation package list. This problem completely prevents to >> install anything ! >> I tried setup.exe version 2.249.2.5 on Windows 2000. >> > Perhaps you should get the newer snapshot a

Re: Bug in setup.exe v 2.249.2.5

Arturs Aboltins wrote: > setup.exe is missing scrollbars in site list as well as in installation > package list. This problem completely prevents to install anything ! > I tried setup.exe version 2.249.2.5 on Windows 2000. > Perhaps you should get the newer snapshot at: http://www.cygwin.com/setup

Re: Bug in setup.exe v 2.249.2.5

On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Arturs Aboltins wrote: > setup.exe is missing scrollbars in site list as well as in installation > package list. This problem completely prevents to install anything ! > I tried setup.exe version 2.249.2.5 on Windows 2000. Known problem (an MS bug, actually). This has to do

Bug in setup.exe v 2.249.2.5

setup.exe is missing scrollbars in site list as well as in installation package list. This problem completely prevents to install anything ! I tried setup.exe version 2.249.2.5 on Windows 2000. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin

RE: Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

> -Original Message- > From: Michael A Chase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 2:28 AM > "Download from Internet" shouldn't care in the least whether > there is a Cygwin installation present or not. It should > only care about the files in the local director

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

> > First, "Download from Internet". That should have read First, "Install from Internet" The following paragraph(s) should then make more sense. > > Assuming there's already a cygwin installation present, setup should > > examine all packages installed and compare their versions with the > > l

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:55:41 +0100 Cliff Hones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Collins wrote: > > So you are suggesting that in download mode it should not offer to > > upgrade any installed packages by default? Or that it should only offer > > upgrades for installed packages without cached f

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:36:46 +1000 Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 9:14 PM > > > The problem seems to be that setup doesn't set these > > already-present packages to 'keep' or 'skip' by default, and

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

Robert Collins wrote: > So you are suggesting that in download mode it should not offer to > upgrade any installed packages by default? Or that it should only offer > upgrades for installed packages without cached files? The latter (approx) . I view it as offering downloads - not upgrades - in d

RE: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

> -Original Message- > From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 9:14 PM > The problem seems to be that setup doesn't set these > already-present packages to 'keep' or 'skip' by default, and > there's no way for the user to find out which packages a

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

From: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 11:29 AM > There is one additional possibility that has > occurred to me. Setup is *designed* to redownload files in download-only > mode. This is not my preference, but was argued over waay back. So in > download mode, *any*

RE: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

> -Original Message- > From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 7:16 PM > I was pleasantly > surprised how easy this was (once I realised the setup200202 > branch was needed), and after adding some diagnostics have so > far found that the check_fo

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > ... > Thanks for the detail Cliff. As a point of interest: both latest and > contrib are obsolete - and I expect setup.exe to redownload the entire > content of mirror sites. This is due to a restructuring done on > sources.redhat.com to put everythign i

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:19:01 +1000 Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 11:55 PM > The download process iterates over all known packages, and calls > download_one for the binar

RE: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

> -Original Message- > From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 11:55 PM > It seems then that the buggy behaviour is present on W9X NT and W2K but not XP. Since the majority of Cygwin users do not > use XP (yet) I'd suggest that it would be a good i

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

Robert, It seems then that the buggy behaviour is present on W9X NT and W2K but not XP. Since the majority of Cygwin users do not use XP (yet) I'd suggest that it would be a good idea for some setup.exe developers to have access to a variety of systems to help avoid and debug this sort of proble

RE: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

> -Original Message- > From: Gerrit P. Haase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 6:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24 > > > Hallo Robert, > > > And I *stil* cannot reproduce it. Setup

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

Hallo Robert, > And I *stil* cannot reproduce it. Setup detects the local files *every > single time*. what system are you on? I have problems on Win2000 and WinNT4. Say, you *install* everything you need from the release using the 'current' (default setting) including some packages where a 'te

RE: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 10:16 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24 > > > On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 09:31:02AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: &g

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 09:31:02AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 9:10 AM > >> Since noone acknowledged it was a bug I've been assuming it was a >(rather strange to me) design feature

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 04:17:01PM -0700, Michael A Chase wrote: >On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:01:34 -0400 Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>However, if Robert indicates that this is not the desired behavior then >>maybe someone else (*cough*, Michael, *cough*) might have time to look >>in

RE: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

> -Original Message- > From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 9:10 AM > Since noone acknowledged it was a bug I've been assuming it was a (rather strange to me) design feature. Actually, I acknowledged it as a bug, but one I couldn't repeat until

RE: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 8:02 AM > >> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:41:04 +0100 Alan Hourihane > >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think this is because you > >>haven't installed the packages yet. I think setup

RE: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

> From: Randall R Schulz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 9:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24 > > > Chris, > > At 12:38 2002-04-19, you wrote: > >On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:28:19AM -0700, Randal

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

epending on what computer I'm downloading from. E. At 06:41 PM 19/04/02 +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote: >Hi, > >I'm wondering if I've found a bug in setup.exe. > >I'm using 2.194.2.24 and when I go through "Download from Internet" >and download the "

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:01:34 -0400 Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 08:33:02PM +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote: > >setup.exe should know what it's downloaded and not installed. > > Yep. I thought I added code to do that in the previous version but > it's been

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

Christopher Faylor wrote on Friday, April 19, 2002 8:38 PM: > On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:28:19AM -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote: > >I think to generalize, the current Setup.exe offers to download based on > >which packages are currently installed, not on which packages are present > >in the loca

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

"Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:28:19AM -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote: > >I think to generalize, the current Setup.exe offers to download based on > >which packages are currently installed, not on w

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 08:33:02PM +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote: >On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:22:08AM -0700, Michael A Chase wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:41:04 +0100 Alan Hourihane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: >>I think this is because you haven't installed the packages yet. I >>think setup.exe

RE: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 5:38 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24 > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:28:19AM -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote: >

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

Chris, At 12:38 2002-04-19, you wrote: >On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:28:19AM -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote: > >I think to generalize, the current Setup.exe offers to download based on > >which packages are currently installed, not on which packages are present > >in the local download area(s). > >I

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:28:19AM -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote: >I think to generalize, the current Setup.exe offers to download based on >which packages are currently installed, not on which packages are present >in the local download area(s). I hate to say it but that sounds like a bug to m

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:22:08AM -0700, Michael A Chase wrote: > On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:41:04 +0100 Alan Hourihane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm using 2.194.2.24 and when I go through "Download from Internet" > > and download the "new" components. It downloads them fine. > > > > Next, I

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

View, CA USA At 10:41 2002-04-19, Alan Hourihane wrote: >Hi, > >I'm wondering if I've found a bug in setup.exe. > >I'm using 2.194.2.24 and when I go through "Download from Internet" and >download the "new" components. It downloads them fine.

Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:41:04 +0100 Alan Hourihane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm using 2.194.2.24 and when I go through "Download from Internet" > and download the "new" components. It downloads them fine. > > Next, I re-run setup.exe and I go through "Download from Internet" again, > (but thi

Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

Hi, I'm wondering if I've found a bug in setup.exe. I'm using 2.194.2.24 and when I go through "Download from Internet" and download the "new" components. It downloads them fine. Next, I re-run setup.exe and I go through "Download from Internet"