Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:04:16 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: bitkeeper cygwin messed up cygwin terminal setting for tcsh, lynx: dumb terminal? Message-ID: <20020607150416.GA18090@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <009101c20e32$e18c57e0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <009101c20e32$e18c57e0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 12:52:00AM +1000, robertc wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com >> [mailto:cygwin-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Ralf Hauser >> Sent: Friday, 7 June 2002 6:01 PM >> To: cygwin@cygwin.com >> Subject: bitkeeper cygwin messed up cygwin terminal setting >> for tcsh, lynx: dumb terminal? >> >> >> When I downloaded bitkeeper, it installed a stripped-down (no >> clue whether >> it was the most recent) version of cygwin on top of the version I had >> already installed. > >I thought bitkeeper was proprietary. Whats the deal with them installing >cygwin? I installed bitkeeper a while ago. They seem to be circumventing the GPL nicely for the most part. The one exception that I could see was that they distribute patch.exe without the corresponding binary AFAICT. IIRC, their installation actually runs a cygwin install. Kinda cheesy, I think, but apparently not illegal. 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/