On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Dave Korn wrote:
> Igor wrote:
>
> > I've looked at this a bit. Here's the weird part: the error
> > says "Uncaught Exception", but all the throws of that
> > exception appear to be properly wrapped in try/catch blocks.
> > So a simple "change exception into an mbox" kind of
Igor wrote:
> I've looked at this a bit. Here's the weird part: the error
> says "Uncaught Exception", but all the throws of that
> exception appear to be properly wrapped in try/catch blocks.
> So a simple "change exception into an mbox" kind of solution
> won't work here. More debugging is nee
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:56:39PM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > Moving to cygwin-apps, as this is likely to get technical.
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Brian Dessent wrote:
> >
> > > Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've looked at this a
Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> Just to reemphasize, these are *not* corrupt tarballs. They are
> tarballs exactly as downloaded, extracted, and installed. It's just
> that later the versions on the cygwin mirror became different while
> keeping the same version/filename. I verified in a coupl
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:56:39PM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> Moving to cygwin-apps, as this is likely to get technical.
>
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Brian Dessent wrote:
>
> > Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >
> > > I've looked at this a bit. Here's the weird part: the error says
> > > "Uncaught Except
Moving to cygwin-apps, as this is likely to get technical.
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Igor Peshansky wrote:
>
> > I've looked at this a bit. Here's the weird part: the error says
> > "Uncaught Exception", but all the throws of that exception appear to be
> > properly wrapped in
Igor Peshansky wrote:
> I've looked at this a bit. Here's the weird part: the error says
> "Uncaught Exception", but all the throws of that exception appear to be
> properly wrapped in try/catch blocks. So a simple "change exception into
> an mbox" kind of solution won't work here. More debuggi
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:37:12PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
> > Linda Walsh wrote:
> >
> > > Is an application crash the expected behavior when
> > > package validation fails? Maybe it should mark it unusable
> > > or delete it?
>
> Yuck.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:37:12PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Linda Walsh wrote:
>
> > Is an application crash the expected behavior when
> > package validation fails? Maybe it should mark it unusable
> > or delete it?
Yuck. I went through this, too. It appeared to me that there were a
larg
Linda Walsh wrote:
> Is an application crash the expected behavior when
> package validation fails? Maybe it should mark it unusable
> or delete it?
At the moment, yes. It's a consequence of a change in the md5
checking. It just means you need to delete the package, as it has the
wrong size or
10 matches
Mail list logo
