On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> Are you sure you don't need to reboot? If cygwin1.dll was in use while
> you were installing and you didn't free it up, a reboot will be necessary
> before you see the new cygwin1.dll.
Yes, the reboot fixed it. I've updated my Cygwin
On 7/22/2013 6:00 PM, Balaji Venkataraman wrote:
I downloaded the latest version of setup-x86.exe (and
setup-x86_64.exe) and updated both my Cygwin installs. The 64bit
version seems to be okay but on 32b Cygwin, I notice a discrepancy in
the dll version number between uname and cygcheck.
$ uname
I downloaded the latest version of setup-x86.exe (and
setup-x86_64.exe) and updated both my Cygwin installs. The 64bit
version seems to be okay but on 32b Cygwin, I notice a discrepancy in
the dll version number between uname and cygcheck.
$ uname -a
CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW64 [EDITED] 1.7.21(0.267/5/3)
On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 10:54:12AM -0700, Herb Maeder wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 12:51:59 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >On a fresh install of cygwin-1.7 (1.7.0-30) on Vista, the output of
>> >"cygcheck -s" sometimes gets truncated. This seems to be more
>> >reproducible when the output
On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 12:51:59 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >On a fresh install of cygwin-1.7 (1.7.0-30) on Vista, the output of
> >"cygcheck -s" sometimes gets truncated. This seems to be more
> >reproducible when the output is piped to another command.
>
> This has been reported before
On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 06:36:32AM -0700, Herb Maeder wrote:
>On a fresh install of cygwin-1.7 (1.7.0-30) on Vista, the output of
>"cygcheck -s" sometimes gets truncated. This seems to be more
>reproducible when the output is piped to another command.
This has been reported before and I was able
On a fresh install of cygwin-1.7 (1.7.0-30) on Vista, the output of
"cygcheck -s" sometimes gets truncated. This seems to be more reproducible
when the output is piped to another command.
I find that this sequence is shows problem quite regularly (typically more
than half of the cycheck commands
Wynfield Henman wrote:
I just wanted a clarification of the meaning that's not quite clear to
me in the
output that I got from cygcheck.
For example the next two lines. It says "Empty package atk-runtime" ,
but below it shows atk-runtime 1.10.3-1 as OK. The difference
between "Empty" and "OK
I just wanted a clarification of the meaning that's not quite clear to me in the
output that I got from cygcheck.
For example the next two lines. It says "Empty package atk-runtime" ,
but below it shows atk-runtime 1.10.3-1 as OK. The difference
between "Empty" and "OK" is what I am concerned
More background:
The box is running windows 2003 server.
The user running "mkpasswd" is a domain user (ie not a local computer
account). This user is in the host's local administrators group.
Help would be greatly appreciated :->
--
thanks,
Tom
Cygwin Configuration Diagnostics
Current S
URM, Yeah, I don't know what I did before.
CYGCHECK OUTPUT ATTACHED
Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote:
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" scribbled on :
MY CYGCHECK OUTPUT exceeds my mail host's size limit (5Mb) and the
zipped version is refused by your server.
Heh!? 5M, that's aweso
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:43:09AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Ed C. Lueless wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:05:05PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >On Jun 23 10:36, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:54:59AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> >>
On Monday 2 Dec 02, Igor Pechtchanski writes:
> I submitted a patch for this a while ago, but it didn't seem to make it
> into the FAQ... Any news on that?
I haven't gotten to it yet, sorry. Perhaps tonight.
Thanks,
David
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Jason C. Johnston wrote:
> For the Cygwin FAQ maintainer:
>
> Quoted from the FAQ under "Posting Guidelines" --
>
> Details about your Cygwin setup, accomplished by pasting the
> output of 'cygcheck -s -v -r' into your message. (Do not send the
> output as a f
On Sunday 1 Dec 02, Jason C. Johnston writes:
> For the Cygwin FAQ maintainer:
>
> Quoted from the FAQ under "Posting Guidelines" --
>
> Details about your Cygwin setup, accomplished by pasting the
> output of 'cygcheck -s -v -r' into your message. (Do not send the
> output as a file
For the Cygwin FAQ maintainer:
Quoted from the FAQ under "Posting Guidelines" --
Details about your Cygwin setup, accomplished by pasting the
output of 'cygcheck -s -v -r' into your message. (Do not send the
output as a file attachment.)
Recent discussion suggests the advice is
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 12:29:12PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 13:23, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> >
> > Does it make sense not to send cygcheck output in compressed format?
>
> Yes.
Another yes.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen
On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 13:23, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> Does it make sense not to send cygcheck output in compressed format?
Yes.
Rob
--
---
GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt.
---
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
As much as I like the idea of sending cygcheck output as an attachment
(Randall take a bow), I really would prefer it if people would refrain
from compressing the output when they send it. The theory is that we
should just be able to open the attachment in our email readers and scan
for problems
19 matches
Mail list logo
