Re: cygwin32-17.1 source on Official CD 2

> Hi, > > Thanks for the reply. I looked at www,debian.org and the package > description says depends on lic5, not libc6. I'm running essentially > pure "stable". Should the binaries using libc5 from hamm be safe with > 1.3.1? There shouldn't really be a problem. On the other hand, I don't r

Re: cygwin32-17.1 source on Official CD 2

Hi, Thanks for the reply. I looked at www,debian.org and the package description says depends on lic5, not libc6. I'm running essentially pure "stable". Should the binaries using libc5 from hamm be safe with 1.3.1? Thanks. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscrib

Re: cygwin32-17.1 source on Official CD 2

> While looking for something else, I noticed the cygwin32-17.1 sources > on the source Official CD. There seems to be no binary package. > The source files are in the "new" source file format (unlike 1.2.10). > There were binary packages in 1.2. What is the status of this stuff? > Is the presen

cygwin32-17.1 source on Official CD 2

Hi, While looking for something else, I noticed the cygwin32-17.1 sources on the source Official CD. There seems to be no binary package. The source files are in the "new" source file format (unlike 1.2.10). There were binary packages in 1.2. What is the status of this stuff? Is the presence of