Re: Using Red Hat digital signing on setup.exe (was Re: Cygwin 1.7.14-2 setup.exe v2.772 broken?)

["Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh@cygwin.com>]

On 4/30/2012 12:34 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:29:27PM -0400, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>> On 4/28/2012 8:51 PM, Nick Lowe wrote:
>>> "I installed 2.772 on my systems as soon as it was available and I
>>> don't see any such issue using my local mirror.  Did you try another
>>> mirror?"
>>>
>>> Quite, but the idea of corruption was implicit in that question. A
>>> digital signature would rule that out.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Not in this case, no.  You inferred the wrong thing from the quote
>> above.  Corinna's suggestion was that the mirror containing the packages
>> was malformed in some way, not that that 'setup.exe' itself was
>> somehow corrupted.
>>
>>> What's with the hostility? It's really bad etiquette... ;)
>>
>> That would be<http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#WJM>.  It makes life more
>> livable. :-)
>
> Or, it could also be that hostility was inexplicably inferred where
> none was intended, i.e., "We're communicating on the internet!"

Oh, THAT.  Yeah, it could just be that. ;-)

But seriously, yes.  I know I didn't read any hostility in your reply.
My response was a (very) roundabout way of saying that.  The smiley was
clearly too subtle. :-(  Sorry 'bout that.

-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple