Re: New setup.exe beta

2002-11-27 Thread Max Bowsher
[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.

2002-11-27 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen
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.

2002-11-27 Thread Robert Collins
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.

2002-11-27 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen
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.

2002-11-27 Thread Pavel Tsekov
> 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.

2002-11-27 Thread Pavel Tsekov
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

2002-11-26 Thread fergus
>> 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.

2002-11-26 Thread Robert Collins
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.

2002-11-26 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen
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.

2002-11-26 Thread John Morrison
> 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

2002-11-26 Thread Robert Collins
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.

2002-11-26 Thread Robert Collins
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)

2002-11-26 Thread Robert Collins
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

2002-11-26 Thread fergus
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)

2002-11-26 Thread Igor Pechtchanski
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.

2002-11-26 Thread Vince Hoffman
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.

2002-11-26 Thread John Morrison
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

2002-11-26 Thread fergus
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.

2002-11-26 Thread Robert Collins
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.

2002-11-26 Thread John Morrison
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