On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 02:12:44PM +0100, Thomas Esser wrote:
>> Sorry forgot to send the modified texconfig.
>> In any case a better solution to the "ed" missing
>> problem is to include in /usr/bin the following
>> shell script, with the name "ed" :
>>
>> #!/bin/sh
>> vim -e $1 $2 $3 $
> Sorry forgot to send the modified texconfig.
> In any case a better solution to the "ed" missing
> problem is to include in /usr/bin the following
> shell script, with the name "ed" :
>
> #!/bin/sh
> vim -e $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6
> exit
>
> Don't forget to make it executable
>
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 03:36:15AM +0100, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
>I fetched the sources from GNU and build it because it is needed
>really often. Builds straight forward OOTB.
>[snip]
>It isn't distributed with Cygwin, but I think it should.
Me too. It is an oversight that it is *not* distribut
Hallo Jerome,
Am 2002-01-05 um 23:50 schriebst du:
> is it your `ed' or a one distributed within Cygwin ?
I fetched the sources from GNU and build it because it is needed
really often. Builds straight forward OOTB.
> As far I remember `ed' compiled without difficulties,
> and apparently ther
Bonjour,
is it your `ed' or a one distributed within Cygwin ?
As far I remember `ed' compiled without difficulties,
and apparently there is no `ed' package:
in which cygwin tarball is `ed' distributed ?
Thanks,
Jerome BENOIT
"Gerrit P. Haase" wrote:
>
> Hallo Rodrigo,
>
> Am 2002-01-05 um
Hallo Rodrigo,
Am 2002-01-05 um 12:24 schriebst du:
> About the question of E. Reiner:
> texconfig and ed
> texconfig requires ed that is not inside cygwin.
$ which ed
/bin/ed
Maybe someone should volunteer and contribute a `port' of `ed';)
Gerrit
--
=^..^=
6 matches
Mail list logo