* does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools?
@ 2001-07-17 2:40 Armin Theissen
2001-07-17 4:49 ` Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 5:23 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Jnb ZI / Chris Wenk
0 siblings, 2 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Armin Theissen @ 2001-07-17 2:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
Hi,
I searched the website for this problem, but cannot find anything
so I want to ask you here.
I have a patch (see attachment, supposed to patch three files down the
directory tree) which won't work using the patch.exe tool provided with
cygwin. However, it works perfectly with other patch.exe tools
(UnxUtils from http://www.edv.agrar.tu-muenchen.de/~syring/win32/UnxUtils.html )
and on unix systems itself.
I wonder what could make the patch work with the cygwin patching
tool.
The patch command is 'patch -b -p2'
Any ideas?
thanks
armin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Armin dot Theissen at sun dot com phone +353 1 819 9080
SUN Microsystems Ireland (SUN intern 19080)
East Point Business Park, Boole House Dublin 3, Rep. of Ireland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Armin dot Theissen at sun dot com phone +353 1 819 9080
SUN Microsystems Ireland (SUN intern 19080)
East Point Business Park, Boole House Dublin 3, Rep. of Ireland
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools?
2001-07-17 2:40 does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools? Armin Theissen
@ 2001-07-17 4:49 ` Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 5:23 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Jnb ZI / Chris Wenk
1 sibling, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2001-07-17 4:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 10:40:12AM +0100, Armin Theissen wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I searched the website for this problem, but cannot find anything
> so I want to ask you here.
>
> I have a patch (see attachment, supposed to patch three files down the
> directory tree) which won't work using the patch.exe tool provided with
> cygwin. However, it works perfectly with other patch.exe tools
> (UnxUtils from http://www.edv.agrar.tu-muenchen.de/~syring/win32/UnxUtils.html )
> and on unix systems itself.
>
> I wonder what could make the patch work with the cygwin patching
> tool.
>
> The patch command is 'patch -b -p2'
>
> Any ideas?
Without details about the error you get from patch? No.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* CYGWIN1.DLL
2001-07-17 2:40 does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools? Armin Theissen
2001-07-17 4:49 ` Corinna Vinschen
@ 2001-07-17 5:23 ` Jnb ZI / Chris Wenk
2001-07-17 5:32 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Corinna Vinschen
1 sibling, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Jnb ZI / Chris Wenk @ 2001-07-17 5:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
Hi there
Is it possible to bind the runtime into the executable program instead
of having CYGWIN1.DLL in the Windows folder.
If yes, how ?
Thanks
Chris
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
2001-07-17 5:23 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Jnb ZI / Chris Wenk
@ 2001-07-17 5:32 ` Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 5:42 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Chris Wenk
0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2001-07-17 5:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 02:21:01PM +0200, Jnb ZI / Chris Wenk wrote:
> Hi there
>
> Is it possible to bind the runtime into the executable program instead
> of having CYGWIN1.DLL in the Windows folder.
> If yes, how ?
No, it's not possible and please don't copy the Cygwin DLL into the
Windows folder. Just let it where it should be, in the <cygwin root>/
bin folder. You will avoid much trouble with your installation.
However, sometimes I'm wondering why people want to do this and
then I'm feeling forced to point to the licensing terms of Cygwin:
http://cygwin.com/licensing.html
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* RE: CYGWIN1.DLL
2001-07-17 5:32 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Corinna Vinschen
@ 2001-07-17 5:42 ` Chris Wenk
2001-07-17 6:23 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Corinna Vinschen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wenk @ 2001-07-17 5:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cygwin@Cygwin. Com
How can I distribute then an executable without the
cygwin1.dll ?
rgds
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
[ mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen
Sent: 17 July 2001 02:32
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 02:21:01PM +0200, Jnb ZI / Chris Wenk wrote:
> Hi there
>
> Is it possible to bind the runtime into the executable program instead
> of having CYGWIN1.DLL in the Windows folder.
> If yes, how ?
No, it's not possible and please don't copy the Cygwin DLL into the
Windows folder. Just let it where it should be, in the <cygwin root>/
bin folder. You will avoid much trouble with your installation.
However, sometimes I'm wondering why people want to do this and
then I'm feeling forced to point to the licensing terms of Cygwin:
http://cygwin.com/licensing.html
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
2001-07-17 5:42 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Chris Wenk
@ 2001-07-17 6:23 ` Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 7:40 ` CYGWIN1.DLL James E. LaBarre
2001-07-17 10:06 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Eric M. Monsler
0 siblings, 2 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2001-07-17 6:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cygwin@Cygwin. Com
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 02:39:33PM +0200, Chris Wenk wrote:
> How can I distribute then an executable without the
> cygwin1.dll ?
You can't. And why would you like to do that? Is the resulting
code at least GPL'd? Remember to read http://cygwin.com/licensing.html .
The only way to distribute an executable without Cygwin DLL is to
not link against it, using only Mingw and native Win32 API functionality.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
2001-07-17 6:23 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Corinna Vinschen
@ 2001-07-17 7:40 ` James E. LaBarre
2001-07-17 8:07 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 8:10 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Christopher Faylor
2001-07-17 10:06 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Eric M. Monsler
1 sibling, 2 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: James E. LaBarre @ 2001-07-17 7:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
Probably to simplify installations for end users that don't have
cygwin. That said, I'd expect the -mingw method would *be* the simplest
for end users; if they specifically need cygwin functionality, then
including more of cygwin would be the way to go (having the added
benefit of being upgradable as new cygwin builds come out).
BTW: "Reply All" didn't work on this message, perhaps because the "To"
line was messed up on the original message?
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 02:39:33PM +0200, Chris Wenk wrote:
> > How can I distribute then an executable without the
> > cygwin1.dll ?
>
> You can't. And why would you like to do that? Is the resulting
> code at least GPL'd? Remember to read http://cygwin.com/licensing.html .
>
> The only way to distribute an executable without Cygwin DLL is to
> not link against it, using only Mingw and native Win32 API functionality.
>
> Corinna
>
> --
> Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
> Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
> Red Hat, Inc.
>
> --
> Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
2001-07-17 7:40 ` CYGWIN1.DLL James E. LaBarre
@ 2001-07-17 8:07 ` Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 8:10 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Christopher Faylor
1 sibling, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2001-07-17 8:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 10:40:57AM -0400, James E. LaBarre wrote:
> Probably to simplify installations for end users that don't have
> cygwin. That said, I'd expect the -mingw method would *be* the simplest
> for end users; if they specifically need cygwin functionality, then
> including more of cygwin would be the way to go (having the added
> benefit of being upgradable as new cygwin builds come out).
>
>
> BTW: "Reply All" didn't work on this message, perhaps because the "To"
> line was messed up on the original message?
No, the "To:" line I'm using is by intend. That helps to get
messages only once and to keep people from sending messages
off-list.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
2001-07-17 7:40 ` CYGWIN1.DLL James E. LaBarre
2001-07-17 8:07 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Corinna Vinschen
@ 2001-07-17 8:10 ` Christopher Faylor
2001-07-17 9:02 ` CYGWIN1.DLL James E. LaBarre
1 sibling, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Christopher Faylor @ 2001-07-17 8:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 10:40:57AM -0400, James E. LaBarre wrote:
>Probably to simplify installations for end users that don't have
>cygwin. That said, I'd expect the -mingw method would *be* the simplest
>for end users; if they specifically need cygwin functionality, then
>including more of cygwin would be the way to go (having the added
>benefit of being upgradable as new cygwin builds come out).
Interesting speculation, but you really can't pick and choose pieces
of cygwin when linking with -mno-cygwin. It's an all or nothing thing.
Either use -mno-cygwin or don't. You can't do things like "Hmm. I
don't want cygwin's path code but I do like fork, so I'll just load
the fork part."
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
2001-07-17 8:10 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Christopher Faylor
@ 2001-07-17 9:02 ` James E. LaBarre
2001-07-17 9:09 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Christopher Faylor
0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: James E. LaBarre @ 2001-07-17 9:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
OK, I meant that the difference between Mingw & regular Cygwin is that
Mingw makes a simpler install for newbies, while using cygwin.dll, etc.
allows you to make use of all the other functionality of cygwin (bash,
command line utils, etc.). It's a tradeoff of what your intended target
is.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 10:40:57AM -0400, James E. LaBarre wrote:
> >Probably to simplify installations for end users that don't have
> >cygwin. That said, I'd expect the -mingw method would *be* the simplest
> >for end users; if they specifically need cygwin functionality, then
> >including more of cygwin would be the way to go (having the added
> >benefit of being upgradable as new cygwin builds come out).
>
> Interesting speculation, but you really can't pick and choose pieces
> of cygwin when linking with -mno-cygwin. It's an all or nothing thing.
> Either use -mno-cygwin or don't. You can't do things like "Hmm. I
> don't want cygwin's path code but I do like fork, so I'll just load
> the fork part."
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
2001-07-17 9:02 ` CYGWIN1.DLL James E. LaBarre
@ 2001-07-17 9:09 ` Christopher Faylor
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Christopher Faylor @ 2001-07-17 9:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 12:02:16PM -0400, James E. LaBarre wrote:
>OK, I meant that the difference between Mingw & regular Cygwin is that
>Mingw makes a simpler install for newbies, while using cygwin.dll, etc.
>allows you to make use of all the other functionality of cygwin (bash,
>command line utils, etc.). It's a tradeoff of what your intended target
>is.
It's not really a tradeoff if we are talking about linking a program.
You seem to be confused between the concept of cygwin1.dll and the
cygwin distribution. They are two different things.
The original poster wanted to build an application that didn't rely on
the Cygwin DLL. He wasn't talking about bash, command line utils, etc.
I was trying to correct the impression that you seemed to be giving that
it was possible to pick and choose cygwin pieces while linking a program.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
2001-07-17 6:23 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 7:40 ` CYGWIN1.DLL James E. LaBarre
@ 2001-07-17 10:06 ` Eric M. Monsler
2001-07-17 11:40 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Kurt Roeckx
2001-07-17 12:33 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Christopher Faylor
1 sibling, 2 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Eric M. Monsler @ 2001-07-17 10:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Corinna Vinschen
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 02:39:33PM +0200, Chris Wenk wrote:
> > How can I distribute then an executable without the
> > cygwin1.dll ?
>
> You can't. And why would you like to do that?
(snip)
SPOILER: I'm not asking for a change!
One example: I've written a small utility to pass a specialized
message-format between UDP and the PC's serial port. Its distribution
is entirely within our company.
I currently have both the application and the .dll checked in to our CM
tools under "utils", so that folks can run it without having cygwin
installed on their PC.
Only a few of us have cygwin installed, but there is a potential
conflict problem with having two cygwin1.dll files, if the CM'd version
lags or leads the version on any given developer's desktop. Thus far,
the cygwin users here are a) mostly knowledgeable enough to deal with
the issue, and b) few enough that I can support them if the conflict
ocurred.
I'm not saying that there should be a way to create a statically linked
cygwin executable. Doing so would certainly allow, and possibly
encourage, widespread license violations. But, I did want to point out
that there are good reasons for desiring a statically linked executable
that are not in violation of the cygwin license.
Eric
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
2001-07-17 10:06 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Eric M. Monsler
@ 2001-07-17 11:40 ` Kurt Roeckx
2001-07-17 12:25 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 12:25 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Charles S. Wilson
2001-07-17 12:33 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Christopher Faylor
1 sibling, 2 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Kurt Roeckx @ 2001-07-17 11:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric M. Monsler; +Cc: Corinna Vinschen
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 10:09:49AM -0700, Eric M. Monsler wrote:
>
> One example: I've written a small utility to pass a specialized
> message-format between UDP and the PC's serial port. Its distribution
> is entirely within our company.
>
> I currently have both the application and the .dll checked in to our CM
> tools under "utils", so that folks can run it without having cygwin
> installed on their PC.
>
> Only a few of us have cygwin installed, but there is a potential
> conflict problem with having two cygwin1.dll files, if the CM'd version
> lags or leads the version on any given developer's desktop. Thus far,
> the cygwin users here are a) mostly knowledgeable enough to deal with
> the issue, and b) few enough that I can support them if the conflict
> ocurred.
I am in about the same situation. There are serveral PCs which
run my software. The software is installed on the NT server, and
only one of the other PCs has cygwin installed, but the dll is
all over the place, and I'm not sure which one it will load to
start with. I'm sure some of them are still B20.
> I'm not saying that there should be a way to create a statically linked
> cygwin executable. Doing so would certainly allow, and possibly
> encourage, widespread license violations. But, I did want to point out
> that there are good reasons for desiring a statically linked executable
> that are not in violation of the cygwin license.
I don't see what it would encourage license violations. You know
give 2 files, which will be turned into 1. You should give a
written offer for all the sources in both cases.
Anyway, I'm of the opinion the DLL should be LGPL. It wouldn't
force us to release software under the GPL if it's linked against
it.
May I also point out that if you download the binaries, it
doesn't even say under which license it is. After running setup
nowhere did it mention it was GPL, nor can I find any file which
says it is. I guess that's the pain if you distribute something
binary, and not everything has the same license.
The setup program itself, under what license does that fall?
Where are the sources of it, if they are available?
Kurt
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
2001-07-17 11:40 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Kurt Roeckx
@ 2001-07-17 12:25 ` Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 12:25 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Charles S. Wilson
1 sibling, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2001-07-17 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 08:40:05PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I don't see what it would encourage license violations. You know
> give 2 files, which will be turned into 1. You should give a
> written offer for all the sources in both cases.
>
> Anyway, I'm of the opinion the DLL should be LGPL. It wouldn't
> force us to release software under the GPL if it's linked against
> it.
The point is that software which is linked against Cygwin has to
conform with the GPL, which basically means, if you release it
publically you'll have to release your sources as well.
What is the problem with that? Nobody hinders you to make
money with your project. As long as the sources are available
according to the GPL. That's the whole point of the GPL.
The only point I can see NOT to release the sources of your
application is, that you fear another person might simply
copy your stuff and you can't make money with it.
That's ok. You can have that with Cygwin as well. You just
have to buy a proprietary Cygwin license from RH and you are
allowed to release your stuff proprietary.
> The setup program itself, under what license does that fall?
> Where are the sources of it, if they are available?
It's GPL'd and the sources are part of the Cygwin DLL source tree.
They are available e.g. in the developer snapshots and via CVS.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
2001-07-17 11:40 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Kurt Roeckx
2001-07-17 12:25 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Corinna Vinschen
@ 2001-07-17 12:25 ` Charles S. Wilson
2001-07-19 7:59 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Max Bowsher
1 sibling, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Charles S. Wilson @ 2001-07-17 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kurt Roeckx; +Cc: Eric M. Monsler, Corinna Vinschen
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> Anyway, I'm of the opinion the DLL should be LGPL. It wouldn't
> force us to release software under the GPL if it's linked against
> it.
>
You're missing the whole point. That requirement is WHY cygwin is
released under the GPL. It's a feature, not a bug. (Also, the FSF
considers the LGPL to be a failed experiment, and no longer recommends
its use. Ever.) With Red Hat's Cygnus-inherited modification to the GPL
in clause 10, the GPL allows developers of free(speech) software to
freely use cygwin.
However, if you want to be proprietary, then you have to purchase a
special proprietary cygwin license. Why should someone who wants to
hoard their code be allowed to benefit from cygwin for free(beer)?
Makers of proprietary software, that wish to use cygwin, OUGHT to pay
for the privelege. Or they can open source their product, and avoid paying.
> May I also point out that if you download the binaries, it
> doesn't even say under which license it is.
Neither does the Red Hat installer, or the Suse installer. Why is this
a requirement? All packages are opensource--of various licenses--and
the source code is provided for everything. Not all are GPL, but most are.
> After running setup
> nowhere did it mention it was GPL, nor can I find any file which
> says it is.
That's true. It is prominently stated on the web page, but perhaps the
cygwin-1.3.3.tar.bz2 package should contain /usr/doc/cygwin.license or
something.
> I guess that's the pain if you distribute something
> binary, and not everything has the same license.
So we provide the most freedom possible: all packages are supplied with
current source, including patches (or CVS) to revert to the "official"
version.
> The setup program itself, under what license does that fall?
> Where are the sources of it, if they are available?
GPL. CVS, or in the cygwin-src tarball, under winsup/cinstall.
--Chuck
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
2001-07-17 12:25 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Charles S. Wilson
@ 2001-07-19 7:59 ` Max Bowsher
2001-07-19 13:08 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Michael A. Chase
0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Max Bowsher @ 2001-07-19 7:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cygwin Maillist
> > The setup program itself, under what license does that fall?
> > Where are the sources of it, if they are available?
>
>
> GPL. CVS, or in the cygwin-src tarball, under winsup/cinstall.
For some inexplicable reason, the setup.exe sources are NOT in the
cygwin-src tarball. I wish they were.
Max.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
2001-07-19 7:59 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Max Bowsher
@ 2001-07-19 13:08 ` Michael A. Chase
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Michael A. Chase @ 2001-07-19 13:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Max Bowsher, Cygwin Maillist
I just downloaded "cygwin-1.3.2-1-src.tar.gz" and the winsup/cinstall/
directory is not there.
Because it has to be able to install cygwin1.dll, setup.exe does not use
cygwin1.dll. Its source is available in the winsup/cinstall/ directory in
CVS. Follow the "Contributing" link at http://cygwin.com to see how to get
it. Read the entire page a couple times before you try anything. There is
no "setup.cc" if that is what you are looking for; the entire
winsup/cinstall/ directory is used to build setup.exe.
--
Mac :})
** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. **
Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day.
Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Max Bowsher" <max@bowshernet.freeserve.co.uk>
To: "Cygwin Maillist" <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 15:04
Subject: Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
> > > The setup program itself, under what license does that fall?
> > > Where are the sources of it, if they are available?
> >
> > GPL. CVS, or in the cygwin-src tarball, under winsup/cinstall.
>
> For some inexplicable reason, the setup.exe sources are NOT in the
> cygwin-src tarball. I wish they were.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
2001-07-17 10:06 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Eric M. Monsler
2001-07-17 11:40 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Kurt Roeckx
@ 2001-07-17 12:33 ` Christopher Faylor
2001-07-17 21:41 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Andrej Borsenkow
1 sibling, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Christopher Faylor @ 2001-07-17 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 10:09:49AM -0700, Eric M. Monsler wrote:
>But, I did want to point out that there are good reasons for desiring a
>statically linked executable that are not in violation of the cygwin
>license.
I don't think I've seen a good reason for this in this thread.
The fact that you could have two disparate versions of the cygwin DLL
on your system is not, in any way, an argument for a statically linked
cygwin. Conflicts between two versions of cygwin have nothing to
do with the DLLness of Cygwin.
I am sure that there are probably some good reasons for a statically
linked cygwin. I'm equally sure that it is unlikely to ever happen
since all that we ever hear is from users who want developers to
make this available for them. Since I'm not aware of any developer
for whom this is an issue, it isn't likely to ever happen.
I'd probably be reluctant to make the functionality available anyway
for the reasons that Corinna mentions.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
2001-07-17 12:33 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Christopher Faylor
@ 2001-07-17 21:41 ` Andrej Borsenkow
2001-07-17 22:02 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Christopher Faylor
0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Andrej Borsenkow @ 2001-07-17 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
yOn Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 10:09:49AM -0700, Eric M. Monsler wrote:
> >But, I did want to point out that there are good reasons for desiring a
> >statically linked executable that are not in violation of the cygwin
> >license.
>
> I don't think I've seen a good reason for this in this thread.
>
> The fact that you could have two disparate versions of the cygwin DLL
> on your system is not, in any way, an argument for a statically linked
> cygwin. Conflicts between two versions of cygwin have nothing to
> do with the DLLness of Cygwin.
>
Actually, it is very good argument *against* static linking. In this case
nothing can help if you have two different programs linked with two
different versions. Somebody will have to rebuild every single program
with new version of Cygwin as soon it is released ... nightmare.
Probably, intelligent setup that checks for existence of cygwin dll
and download/update it only if needed makes more sense.
-andrej
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: CYGWIN1.DLL
2001-07-17 21:41 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Andrej Borsenkow
@ 2001-07-17 22:02 ` Christopher Faylor
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Christopher Faylor @ 2001-07-17 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 08:41:26AM +0400, Andrej Borsenkow wrote:
>yOn Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 10:09:49AM -0700, Eric M. Monsler wrote:
>> >But, I did want to point out that there are good reasons for desiring a
>> >statically linked executable that are not in violation of the cygwin
>> >license.
>>
>> I don't think I've seen a good reason for this in this thread.
>>
>> The fact that you could have two disparate versions of the cygwin DLL
>> on your system is not, in any way, an argument for a statically linked
>> cygwin. Conflicts between two versions of cygwin have nothing to
>> do with the DLLness of Cygwin.
>>
>
>Actually, it is very good argument *against* static linking. In this case
>nothing can help if you have two different programs linked with two
>different versions. Somebody will have to rebuild every single program
>with new version of Cygwin as soon it is released ... nightmare.
Right! Good point.
>Probably, intelligent setup that checks for existence of cygwin dll
>and download/update it only if needed makes more sense.
Actually the current version of setup.exe has some preliminary code for
doing just this.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools?
@ 2001-07-17 5:49 Armin Theissen
2001-07-17 6:26 ` Corinna Vinschen
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Armin Theissen @ 2001-07-17 5:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
Hi,
the patch plainly fails:
cd build\wntmsci7.pro && (type ..\..\db-3.2.9.patch | patch -b -p2) &&
C:\cygnus\CYGWIN~1\H-I586~1\bin\touch.exe so_patched
patching file `db-3.2.9/cxx/cxx_app.cpp'
Hunk #1 FAILED at 7.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to db-3.2.9/cxx/cxx_app.cpp.rej
patching file `db-3.2.9/cxx/cxx_table.cpp'
Hunk #1 FAILED at 7.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to db-3.2.9/cxx/cxx_table.cpp.rej
patching file `db-3.2.9/dist/Makefile.in'
Hunk #1 FAILED at 8.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to db-3.2.9/dist/Makefile.in.rej
dmake: Error code 129, while making 'build\wntmsci7.pro\so_patched'
---*TG_SLO.MK*---
a.
> From: Corinna Vinschen <cygwin@cygwin.com>
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 10:40:12AM +0100, Armin Theissen wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I searched the website for this problem, but cannot find anything
> > so I want to ask you here.
> >
> > I have a patch (see attachment, supposed to patch three files down the
> > directory tree) which won't work using the patch.exe tool provided with
> > cygwin. However, it works perfectly with other patch.exe tools
> > (UnxUtils from
http://www.edv.agrar.tu-muenchen.de/~syring/win32/UnxUtils.html )
> > and on unix systems itself.
> >
> > I wonder what could make the patch work with the cygwin patching
> > tool.
> >
> > The patch command is 'patch -b -p2'
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> Without details about the error you get from patch? No.
>
> Corinna
>
> --
> Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
> Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
> Red Hat, Inc.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Armin dot Theissen at sun dot com phone +353 1 819 9080
SUN Microsystems Ireland (SUN intern 19080)
East Point Business Park, Boole House Dublin 3, Rep. of Ireland
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools?
2001-07-17 5:49 does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools? Armin Theissen
@ 2001-07-17 6:26 ` Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 9:23 ` Oliver Nittka
2001-07-17 9:44 ` Michael A. Chase
2 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2001-07-17 6:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 01:49:00PM +0100, Armin Theissen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> the patch plainly fails:
>
> cd build\wntmsci7.pro && (type ..\..\db-3.2.9.patch | patch -b -p2) &&
> C:\cygnus\CYGWIN~1\H-I586~1\bin\touch.exe so_patched
Erm, did you try the simple version?
patch -b -p2 -i ../../db-3.2.9.patch
And why do you mix that stuff with using native windows `type' and
using \ instead of /?
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools?
2001-07-17 5:49 does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools? Armin Theissen
2001-07-17 6:26 ` Corinna Vinschen
@ 2001-07-17 9:23 ` Oliver Nittka
2001-07-17 9:46 ` Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 9:44 ` Michael A. Chase
2 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Nittka @ 2001-07-17 9:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 795 bytes --]
Armin Theissen <Armin.Theissen@Sun.COM> writes:
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 7.
this sometimes happend to me when the patchfile had dos-style line
endings and the file(s) to patch hadn't (or vice versa).
mybe "type" does something to your file ?
i usually work around this by opening the patchfile in emacs and save
it using "set-buffer-file-coding-system".
HTH
-- oly
--
Oliver Nittka | nittka@esem.com
ESEM Grünau GmbH & Co. KG | http://www.esem.com
DornierstraÃe 6 | phone: +49 7544 9583-25
88677 Markdorf / Germany | fax: +49 7544 9583-60
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools?
2001-07-17 5:49 does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools? Armin Theissen
2001-07-17 6:26 ` Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 9:23 ` Oliver Nittka
@ 2001-07-17 9:44 ` Michael A. Chase
2001-07-17 9:57 ` Corinna Vinschen
2 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Michael A. Chase @ 2001-07-17 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Armin Theissen, cygwin
You appear to be using a rather old version of the Cygwin environment
(C:\cygnus\CYGWIN~1\H-I586~1\bin\). A newer version of Cygwin with the
patch.exe built for it might work better.
--
Mac :})
** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. **
Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day.
Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Armin Theissen" <Armin.Theissen@Sun.COM>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 05:49
Subject: Re: does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools?
> the patch plainly fails:
>
> cd build\wntmsci7.pro && (type ..\..\db-3.2.9.patch | patch -b -p2) &&
> C:\cygnus\CYGWIN~1\H-I586~1\bin\touch.exe so_patched
> patching file `db-3.2.9/cxx/cxx_app.cpp'
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 7.
> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to db-3.2.9/cxx/cxx_app.cpp.rej
> patching file `db-3.2.9/cxx/cxx_table.cpp'
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 7.
> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to db-3.2.9/cxx/cxx_table.cpp.rej
> patching file `db-3.2.9/dist/Makefile.in'
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 8.
> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to db-3.2.9/dist/Makefile.in.rej
> dmake: Error code 129, while making 'build\wntmsci7.pro\so_patched'
> ---*TG_SLO.MK*---
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools?
@ 2001-07-18 2:42 Armin Theissen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Armin Theissen @ 2001-07-18 2:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
Hi,
thanks for all your help on that issue. We got the patch working
now.
First, Corrina's suggestion of forgetting the 'type' works, but
the patch is part of a makefile which should work for unix platforms
as well (openoffice.org) and the type command is needed there for
reasons I don't know right now ( = I don't build the unix stuff).
Then, it makes no difference whether I use the newest latest cygwin
or the old one (which we need to compile openoffice.org properly
from the 4nt shell using cygwin tools).
Last but not least, the line-ends. The solution to make the patch
working is
type patch-file-name | tr -d "\015"| patch -b -p2
armin
>
> You appear to be using a rather old version of the Cygwin environment
> (C:\cygnus\CYGWIN~1\H-I586~1\bin\). A newer version of Cygwin with the
> patch.exe built for it might work better.
>
> --
> Mac :})
> ** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. **
> Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day.
> Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Armin Theissen" <Armin.Theissen@Sun.COM>
> To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 05:49
> Subject: Re: does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools?
>
>
> > the patch plainly fails:
> >
> > cd build\wntmsci7.pro && (type ..\..\db-3.2.9.patch | patch -b -p2) &&
> > C:\cygnus\CYGWIN~1\H-I586~1\bin\touch.exe so_patched
> > patching file `db-3.2.9/cxx/cxx_app.cpp'
> > Hunk #1 FAILED at 7.
> > 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to db-3.2.9/cxx/cxx_app.cpp.rej
> > patching file `db-3.2.9/cxx/cxx_table.cpp'
> > Hunk #1 FAILED at 7.
> > 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to db-3.2.9/cxx/cxx_table.cpp.rej
> > patching file `db-3.2.9/dist/Makefile.in'
> > Hunk #1 FAILED at 8.
> > 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to db-3.2.9/dist/Makefile.in.rej
> > dmake: Error code 129, while making 'build\wntmsci7.pro\so_patched'
> > ---*TG_SLO.MK*---
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Armin dot Theissen at sun dot com phone +353 1 819 9080
SUN Microsystems Ireland (SUN intern 19080)
East Point Business Park, Boole House Dublin 3, Rep. of Ireland
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <200107180941.KAA16581@ireserver.Ireland.Sun.COM>]
* Re: does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools?
[not found] <200107180941.KAA16581@ireserver.Ireland.Sun.COM>
@ 2001-07-18 6:39 ` Michael A. Chase
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Michael A. Chase @ 2001-07-18 6:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Armin Theissen, cygwin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Armin Theissen" <Armin.Theissen@Sun.COM>
To: <mchase@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 02:41
Subject: Re: does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools?
> thanks for all your help on that issue. We got the patch working
> now.
>
> First, Corrina's suggestion of forgetting the 'type' works, but
> the patch is part of a makefile which should work for unix platforms
> as well (openoffice.org) and the type command is needed there for
> reasons I don't know right now ( = I don't build the unix stuff).
> Then, it makes no difference whether I use the newest latest cygwin
> or the old one (which we need to compile openoffice.org properly
> from the 4nt shell using cygwin tools).
> Last but not least, the line-ends. The solution to make the patch
> working is
>
> type patch-file-name | tr -d "\015"| patch -b -p2
In UNIX, 'type' may be used to search for a command in the directories
listed in $PATH. In MSDOS, 'type' copies its input file to STDOUT which is
more like UNIX 'cat'. That leads me to believe you are already in a MSDOS
(or 4nt) specific section of your makefile.
What problems prevent you from compiling openoffice.org using the latest
Cygwin? If you have problems in the future with the old version, you are
going to have a hard time finding anyone to help.
> > You appear to be using a rather old version of the Cygwin environment
> > (C:\cygnus\CYGWIN~1\H-I586~1\bin\). A newer version of Cygwin with the
> > patch.exe built for it might work better.
--
Mac :})
** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. **
Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day.
Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* RE: does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools?
@ 2001-07-18 12:14 Heribert Dahms
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Heribert Dahms @ 2001-07-18 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Armin Theissen', cygwin
Hi Armin,
if you edit your makefile anyway you can as well use Corinna's original
suggestion:
patch -b -p2 -i ../../db-3.2.9.patch
or I'd use the unixy way:
patch -b -p2 < ../../db-3.2.9.patch
or for best portability conditionally set a variable to cat or type:
$CAT patch-file-name | patch -b -p2
Bye, Heribert (heribert_dahms@icon-gmbh.de)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Armin Theissen [SMTP:Armin.Theissen@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 11:42
> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: does patch.exe work different than other unx patch
> tools?
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> thanks for all your help on that issue. We got the patch working
> now.
>
> First, Corrina's suggestion of forgetting the 'type' works, but
> the patch is part of a makefile which should work for unix platforms
> as well (openoffice.org) and the type command is needed there for
> reasons I don't know right now ( = I don't build the unix stuff).
> Then, it makes no difference whether I use the newest latest cygwin
> or the old one (which we need to compile openoffice.org properly
> from the 4nt shell using cygwin tools).
> Last but not least, the line-ends. The solution to make the patch
> working is
>
> type patch-file-name | tr -d "\015"| patch -b -p2
>
> armin
>
>
[Heribert] [snip]
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-07-19 13:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-07-17 2:40 does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools? Armin Theissen
2001-07-17 4:49 ` Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 5:23 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Jnb ZI / Chris Wenk
2001-07-17 5:32 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 5:42 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Chris Wenk
2001-07-17 6:23 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 7:40 ` CYGWIN1.DLL James E. LaBarre
2001-07-17 8:07 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 8:10 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Christopher Faylor
2001-07-17 9:02 ` CYGWIN1.DLL James E. LaBarre
2001-07-17 9:09 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Christopher Faylor
2001-07-17 10:06 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Eric M. Monsler
2001-07-17 11:40 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Kurt Roeckx
2001-07-17 12:25 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 12:25 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Charles S. Wilson
2001-07-19 7:59 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Max Bowsher
2001-07-19 13:08 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Michael A. Chase
2001-07-17 12:33 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Christopher Faylor
2001-07-17 21:41 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Andrej Borsenkow
2001-07-17 22:02 ` CYGWIN1.DLL Christopher Faylor
2001-07-17 5:49 does patch.exe work different than other unx patch tools? Armin Theissen
2001-07-17 6:26 ` Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 9:23 ` Oliver Nittka
2001-07-17 9:46 ` Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-17 9:44 ` Michael A. Chase
2001-07-17 9:57 ` Corinna Vinschen
2001-07-18 2:42 Armin Theissen
[not found] <200107180941.KAA16581@ireserver.Ireland.Sun.COM>
2001-07-18 6:39 ` Michael A. Chase
2001-07-18 12:14 Heribert Dahms
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).