Jon TURNEY writes:
> You might want to start by taking a look at
> https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2007-02/msg00060.html
If you were worried, I'm not gonna try Perl version objects on
these... :-)
Regards,
Achim.
--
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+
SD adap
On 11/11/2014 17:20, Achim Gratz wrote:
Corinna Vinschen writes:
This only happens in genini AFAIK, not in upset. But the dependency
issues might really be related to the test release version numbers.
Yaakov is digging into upset ATM.
OK, when I find time I'll have a look of how to fix it. B
Corinna Vinschen writes:
> This only happens in genini AFAIK, not in upset. But the dependency
> issues might really be related to the test release version numbers.
> Yaakov is digging into upset ATM.
OK, when I find time I'll have a look of how to fix it. BTW, is there a
good reason to keep thi
Yaakov Selkowitz writes:
> On 2014-11-10 12:31, Achim Gratz wrote:
>> The current beta packages contain a "." in the release number. That dot is
>> chopped off along with the anything that follows in some places during
>> install in setup.exe.
>
> Which places exactly? We could just fix this in s
On 2014-11-10 12:31, Achim Gratz wrote:
The current beta packages contain a "." in the release number. That dot is
chopped off along with the anything that follows in some places during
install in setup.exe.
Which places exactly? We could just fix this in setup instead.
--
Yaakov
On Nov 10 22:24, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Ken Brown writes:
> > Apparently setup.exe doesn't parse the data for the cygwin package
> > correctly, and its dependencies therefore don't get taken into account
> > in computing the dependency order.
>
> To decide that, a formal definition of what is a perm
On Nov 10 19:31, Achim Gratz wrote:
>
> Two minor nits:
>
> The current beta packages contain a "." in the release number.
[skipping this in the light of Ken's reply]
> Also, can the cygwin-devel package please get a source: line in
> setup.ini? Without it, I can't correctly parse setup.ini an
Ken Brown writes:
> Apparently setup.exe doesn't parse the data for the cygwin package
> correctly, and its dependencies therefore don't get taken into account
> in computing the dependency order.
To decide that, a formal definition of what is a permissible release
number is required and I don't t
On 11/10/2014 1:31 PM, Achim Gratz wrote:
Two minor nits:
The current beta packages contain a "." in the release number. That dot is
chopped off along with the anything that follows in some places during
install in setup.exe. A better naming scheme would use a letter there,
so perhaps "0b8" (
Two minor nits:
The current beta packages contain a "." in the release number. That dot is
chopped off along with the anything that follows in some places during
install in setup.exe. A better naming scheme would use a letter there,
so perhaps "0b8" (I know that this doesn't produce problems si
10 matches
Mail list logo
