Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Subject: RE: new cygwin package: cgoban
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 18:24:25 +1000
Message-ID: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5FB9@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: "Teun Burgers" <a DOT rburgers AT freeler DOT nl>, <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g448OeI07371

Get a new setup.exe from http://www.cygwin.com/setup.exe.

Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teun Burgers [mailto:a DOT rburgers AT freeler DOT nl] 
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 5:46 PM
> To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: new cygwin package: cgoban
> 
> 
> I see the original message has led
> to quite some discussion and even a decree.
> 
> What is the status on the upload?
> My setup.exe seems to crash on an increasing
> number of mirrors right after download
> of setup.ini. This is the message:
> 
>    SETUP heeft een algemene beschermingsfout veroorzaakt 
>    in module USER.EXE op 0004:00005ff0.
> 
>    (dutch for general protecting fault).
> 
> Charles Wilson wrote:
> 
> > Similarly, I don't like the restriction that all 'X'-based 
> packages go
> > under XFree86/ on sourceware.  We don't put inetutils underneath 
> > ncurses/.  We don't put openssh under openssl/.
> 
> And:
> 
> > Further, if one accepts that there should be one tree for all X
> > **clients**, you've never stated WHY that single tree must 
> be the same 
> > one used by the XFree86 packages. They aren't PART of 
> XFree86.  They 
> > just USE XFree86.
> 
> I couldn't agree more. Putting them under XFree86 strongly 
> suggests that the package would be part of XFree86, and that 
> is not the case.
> 
> Teun Burgers
>