RE: Global 32/64 bit collision issues

>>> But what about cygserver? Without cygserver there's no XSI IPC. >>> Even if we don't change the service names on a general basis, >>> shouldn't cygserver at least be available in parallel, using >>> different service names? >> >> IMO yes. > > I guessed. > > I'm kind of cringing when thinking of

RE: [ITP] win-ssh-agent 1.07

> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 23:03:39 -0400 > From: cgf > To: cygwin-apps > Subject: Re: [ITP] win-ssh-agent 1.07 > > I don't agree. I don't see why this couldn't be accomplished using > standard UNIX tools and it seems like it might even be a potential > security hole. I don't see the need to have th

RE: [ITA] - base-files

Hi All... > Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 12:04:39 + > Subject: Re: [ITA] - base-files > From: andy > On 9 December 2010 06:29, David Sastre wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 11:21:38PM +, Andy Koppe wrote: > >> On 8 December 2010 21:22, David Sastre wrote: > >> > I have decided to pull out of /

RE: Avoiding the final setup.exe page

<20090921024801.ga4...@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 > Date: Sun=2C 20 Sep 2009 22:48:01 -0400 > From: cgf > Subject: Re: Avoiding the final setup.exe page > > On Mon=2C Sep 21=2C 2009 at 12:42:0

RE: Avoiding the final setup.exe page

<20090921024801.ga4...@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 > Date: Sun=2C 20 Sep 2009 22:48:01 -0400 > From: cgf > Subject: Re: Avoiding the final setup.exe page > > On Mon=2C Sep 21=2C 2009 at 12:42:06

RE: Question: Desired owner/group when running setup-1.7.exe

> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:02:26 +0200 > Subject: Question: Desired owner/group when running setup-1.7.exe > > Hi guys, > > along the lines of the thread starting at > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2009-04/msg00066.html I'd like to ask a > multiple ch

RE: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Hi All... I like this!!! > Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 11:42:20 +0200 > From: corinna > Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area > > For a start, please note that this patch is just preliminary. > > The actual problem is still one of the problems I noted in my mail > http://cygwin.

RE: [ITP] unison2.13.16, unison2.17.1

Hi Andrew... Perhaps 2.13-nn and 2.17-nn would be a better choice for the versioning now, because of the changes made by the Unison team. That is all 2.13.xx are interoperable with each other. 2.13.xx and 2.13.yy are interoperable for any xx and yy. Same for 2.17.zz... Thanks, ...Karl Fr

Re: maybe-ITP: bsdiff

Hi All... Could it be distributed in kit form? That is, could it require the toold to build it, and be built in the postinstall script? Thanks, ...Karl From: "Tacvek" Subject: Re: maybe-ITP: bsdiff Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 15:48:19 -0400 It's hard to see the BSDPL as an open-source license, since

Re: [PATCH] Uninstall .dll last, reinstall first - final version

Hi All... Should the actual file deletion be moved to a later phase? What I mean is where deletions are now performed, should files to be deleted be appended to a list (of files to be deleted), and then deleted all at once? Thanks, ...Karl From: "Max Bowsher" To: "Dave Korn" Subject: Re: [PATCH]

cygrunsrv

Hi All... In testing out my keychain service on a new XP system, I was thinking about all of the questions that have shown up on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list in the past about launching a service from a user-id other than SYSTEM. And...I was wondering how you(s) felt about adding the ability for c