Hi there,
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 Steven Monai wrote:
>
> On 2010/03/17 6:54 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> > Oh. Are we still talking about this? I drifted off.
> > Somebody please wake me when all of this tempest in a bikeshed is over.
>
> I don't understand the reason for the dismissive attitu
Sigh.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 02:07:33AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>Can we please shut this discussion down? The person who had the initial
>problem is satisfied and I've made it clear that no one at
>sourceware.org/cygwin.com is interested in pursuing additional web site
>measures. While
Can we please shut this discussion down? The person who had the initial
problem is satisfied and I've made it clear that no one at
sourceware.org/cygwin.com is interested in pursuing additional web site
measures. While that could change at some point in the past, it is not
going to do so because
On 2010/03/18 8:38 AM, Warren Young wrote:
> Your proposed solutions don't really work.
I disagree. Granted, they are not 100% effective, but since when is
perfection the standard by which all solutions are judged?
> They're crutches which may
> help in some cases, but they don't absolutely and f
On 2010/03/17 10:28 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 18/03/2010 00:58, Steven Monai wrote:
>
>> As an alternative to setting up SSL on cygwin.com, what about the idea
>> of crypto-signing (e.g. with gnupg) every release of setup.exe, and then
>> posting the signature alongside the binary? I know I would
2010.03.18.16:13:51 UT
Hi Gregg and CygWin folks,
I found the PGP/GPG key, and confirmed the validity of the setup.exe.
As for the blocking, my college hires Cymphonix to do this for them, and
then the college Information Svces. guys stay com- pletely away fr
On 3/17/2010 9:05 PM, Steven Monai wrote:
On 2010/03/17 6:54 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Oh. Are we still talking about this? I drifted off.
Somebody please wake me when all of this tempest in a bikeshed is over.
I don't understand the reason for the dismissive attitude.
Your proposed s
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 05:35:17AM +, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 17/03/2010 15:06, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>To be clear, while Dave does seem to be implying that he has the
>>ability to make this happen, this really is basically my decision and
>>the decision of the other people who maintain the s
On 17/03/2010 15:06, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> To be clear, while Dave does seem to be implying that he has the ability
> to make this happen, this really is basically my decision and the
> decision of the other people who maintain the site, i.e., not Dave. Any
> actual work involved would like
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Dave Korn <*> wrote:
> On 18/03/2010 00:58, Steven Monai wrote:
>
>> As an alternative to setting up SSL on cygwin.com, what about the idea
>> of crypto-signing (e.g. with gnupg) every release of setup.exe, and then
>> posting the signature alongside
On 18/03/2010 00:58, Steven Monai wrote:
> As an alternative to setting up SSL on cygwin.com, what about the idea
> of crypto-signing (e.g. with gnupg) every release of setup.exe, and then
> posting the signature alongside the binary? I know I would breathe a
> little easier if I were able to posi
On 2010/03/17 6:54 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Oh. Are we still talking about this? I drifted off.
>
> Somebody please wake me when all of this tempest in a bikeshed is over.
I don't understand the reason for the dismissive attitude.
Pretty much every other distro posts cryptographic hashe
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 05:58:07PM -0700, Steven Monai wrote:
>On 2010/03/17 8:06 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Since I haven't seen any guarantees that adding https would fix this
>> problem I'm not convinced that this justifies the amount of work
>> involved. So, until the mailing list is flo
On 2010/03/17 8:06 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Since I haven't seen any guarantees that adding https would fix this
> problem I'm not convinced that this justifies the amount of work
> involved. So, until the mailing list is flooded with people who can't
> download setup.exe because we don't h
Hi there,
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 cgf wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:45:47AM +, G.W. Haywood wrote:
> >On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 Csaba Raduly wrote:
> >>>Perhaps the MD5 and/or SHA1 checksums for the current setup.exe should
> >>>be published (and updated every time there's a new release) next to
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:45:47AM +, G.W. Haywood wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 Csaba Raduly wrote:
>>>Perhaps the MD5 and/or SHA1 checksums for the current setup.exe should
>>>be published (and updated every time there's a new release) next to the
>>>download link (like Apache does, for example
On 16/03/2010 09:53, Csaba Raduly wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Steven Monai wrote:
> [snip]
>> IT departments are becoming increasingly security conscious. That's
>> probably why the OP had trouble downloading setup.exe. It wasn't because
>> his IT was "brain-dead", but because there a
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Steven Monai wrote:
[snip]
> IT departments are becoming increasingly security conscious. That's
> probably why the OP had trouble downloading setup.exe. It wasn't because
> his IT was "brain-dead", but because there are legitimate security
> concerns about download
On 2010/03/14 12:02 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> We are not going to be installing an https server in the hopes that it
> will defeat misguided setup.exe blocking for the same reason that we
> won't be adopting a new versioning scheme - neither is a guarantee.
>
> I don't mind trying to figure
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:25:39AM +, G.W. Haywood wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 cgf wrote:
>>I wasn't always mean. I just got that way after the 63rd repeat "Why
>>don't you just" suggestion.
>
>I had a friend who ran a corner shop. One of his favourite lines was
>"I'm sick of telling people t
Hi there,
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 cgf wrote:
> I wasn't always mean. I just got that way after the 63rd repeat "Why
> don't you just" suggestion.
I had a friend who ran a corner shop. One of his favourite lines was
"I'm sick of telling people that there's no demand for that."
I bought most of his
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 02:36:08PM -0400, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>On 3/14/2010 1:05 PM, Jason Pyeron wrote:
>> Name setup.exe as cygwin-setup-v.vv.vv.exe or similar meaning and continue to
>> provide setup.exe as the most current cygwin-setup-v.vv.vv.exe (by symlink or
>> redirect)
>
>This has
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 10:23:40AM -0700, Steven Monai wrote:
>On 2010/03/14 10:05 AM, Jason Pyeron wrote:
>>Here is the proposal:
>>
>>Name setup.exe as cygwin-setup-v.vv.vv.exe or similar meaning and
>>continue to provide setup.exe as the most current
>>cygwin-setup-v.vv.vv.exe (by symlink or red
On 3/14/2010 1:05 PM, Jason Pyeron wrote:
Name setup.exe as cygwin-setup-v.vv.vv.exe or similar meaning and continue to
provide setup.exe as the most current cygwin-setup-v.vv.vv.exe (by symlink or
redirect)
This has been discussed to death already on this list and/or the apps list.
There is no
On 2010/03/14 10:05 AM, Jason Pyeron wrote:
> Here is the proposal:
>
> Name setup.exe as cygwin-setup-v.vv.vv.exe or similar meaning and continue to
> provide setup.exe as the most current cygwin-setup-v.vv.vv.exe (by symlink or
> redirect)
An additional idea: Serve setup.exe via HTTPS. That wou
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 12:30
> Subject: Re: incomplete/corrupted setup.exe
>
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:12:42AM +, G.W. Haywood wrote:
> >Hi there,
> >
> >Fifteen messages on this subject
George Barrick wrote on 2010-03-14:
2010.03.14.12:14:09 EST
Hello Cygwin,
The output from 'wget -S' was:
$ wget -S http://cygwin.com/setup.exe
--2010-03-14 12:08:43-- http://cygwin.com/setup.exe
Resolving cygwin.com... 209.132.180.131
Connecting to cygwin.com|2
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:12:42AM +, G.W. Haywood wrote:
>Hi there,
>
>Fifteen messages on this subject and counting.
>
>How long would it take just to install a temporary symlink for the guy?
>
>Something like
>
>cygwin-setup-1.7-2010.03.14.exe
You aren't thinking about the consequences of y
2010.03.14.12:14:09 EST
Hello Cygwin,
The output from 'wget -S' was:
$ wget -S http://cygwin.com/setup.exe
--2010-03-14 12:08:43-- http://cygwin.com/setup.exe
Resolving cygwin.com... 209.132.180.131
Connecting to cygwin.com|209.132.180.131|:80... connected.
HTTP r
2010.03.14.12:05:51 EST
Hi Jason,
The notification said:
Blocked Reason: Spyware URL: Executable
I believe that my university is using a
filter supplied by a server-farm group
called Cymphonix.
George gbarr...@walsh.edu
--
Problem reports: http://cy
On 14/03/2010 16:02, Jason Pyeron wrote:
>> Hey Cygwin folks,
>>
>> You all have been very patient with me.
>> I guess that I _am_ an idiot, because it turns out that it is
>> my own university network that is blocking that URL. The
>
> Just curious, what was the metric (reason) they were
> -Original Message-
> From: George Barrick
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 11:45
> Subject: Re: incomplete/corrupted setup.exe
>
>
> 2010.03.14.11:50:56 EST
>
> Hey Cygwin folks,
>
> You all have been very patient with m
2010.03.14.11:50:56 EST
Hey Cygwin folks,
You all have been very patient with me.
I guess that I _am_ an idiot, because it turns
out that it is my own university network that
is blocking that URL. The problem had me at
a loss because of the sudden change in behavior
Hi there,
Fifteen messages on this subject and counting.
How long would it take just to install a temporary symlink for the guy?
Something like
cygwin-setup-1.7-2010.03.14.exe
:)
--
73,
Ged.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/f
On 3/12/2010 1:51 PM, George Barrick wrote:
2010.03.12.18:53:51 UT
Hi Larry,
O.K. So that would be a 'backbone'
server in my region that caches the file,
but gets a corrupted version of it?
Perhaps. If it's not a local process that's
causing the problem, then a bad
On 3/12/2010 10:04 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:41:15AM -0500, George Barrick wrote:
>> I've tried a couple of different browsers as well as 'wget' to pull the
>> setup.exe file. I swear that I'm not being an idiot. I also went to a
>> sub-network here at our organiz
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:41:15AM -0500, George Barrick wrote:
>I've tried a couple of different browsers as well as 'wget' to pull the
>setup.exe file. I swear that I'm not being an idiot. I also went to a
>sub-network here at our organization that implements a different
>router, and wound up w
On 12/03/2010 12:17, George Barrick wrote:
> It looks like the newest version of
> the setup.exe has been transmitted
> incompletely to the server. Its size is
> only 10.9 kBt, but the typical setup.exe is
> 610 kBt. When I try to run the downloaded
> program, it crashes immediately with:
2010.03.12.18:53:51 UT
Hi Larry,
O.K. So that would be a 'backbone'
server in my region that caches the file,
but gets a corrupted version of it?
In that circumstance, it is nothing
"insidious". I just have to wait until
the offending file gets flushed from the
serve
On 3/12/2010 1:33 PM, George Barrick wrote:
Can this be some kind of insidious
site-blocking that is being implemented by
the persons who manage network security for
my institution? My only good test will be
tonight when I arrive home to try the download
from my DSL-network.
Most likely
2010.03.12.18:32:08 UT
Hi Jason,
I tried all three of the URL's that
you provided. Both
http://mirrors.pdinc.us/setup.exe.gz
http://mirrors.pdinc.us/cygwin-htdocs/setup.exe
gave me a 'wget' process that seemed to
hang. I had to kill it after a few minutes.
They both
> -Original Message-
> From: George Barrick
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 9:57
> Subject: Re: incomplete/corrupted setup.exe
>
> 2010.03.12.14:58:07 UT
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> My md5sum for the bad version of
> the file is:
>
George Barrick sent the following at Friday, March 12, 2010 8:41 AM
> I've tried a couple of different
>browsers as well as 'wget' to pull the setup.exe file. I swear that
>I'm not being an idiot. I also went to a sub-network here at our
>organization that implements a different router, and wou
2010.03.12.14:58:07 UT
Hi Jason,
My md5sum for the bad version of
the file is:
ab9fd4fa13f38ed6e9086cfe4d6c7064 *setup.exe
The url was http://cygwin.com/setup.exe.
George gbarr...@walsh.exe
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:
> -Original Message-
> From: Behalf Of George Barrick
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 8:41
> Subject: Re: incomplete/corrupted setup.exe
>
>2010.03.12.13:43:11 UT
>
> Hi Corinna,
>
> I've tried a couple of different
>
2010.03.12.13:43:11 UT
Hi Corinna,
I've tried a couple of different
browsers as well as 'wget' to pull the
setup.exe file. I swear that I'm not
being an idiot. I also went to a
sub-network here at our organization
that implements a different router, and
wound up with the
On Mar 12 07:17, George Barrick wrote:
> 2010.03.12.12:18:07 UT
>
> Hey Cygwin folks,
>
> It looks like the newest version of
> the setup.exe has been transmitted
> incompletely to the server. Its size is
> only 10.9 kBt, but the typical setup.exe is
> 610 kBt.
Thi
47 matches
Mail list logo
