X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX180alC53SuC+rkDSeLcJvB/
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:34:32 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Using Red Hat digital signing on setup.exe (was Re: Cygwin 1.7.14-2 setup.exe v2.772 broken?)
Message-ID: <20120430163432.GB13086@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <4F9B6DC1.3030303@gmail.com> <4F9B77B1.9070200@gmail.com> <4F9C22B1.5000405@comcast.net> <20120428180621.GA23030@calimero.vinschen.de> <CADSoG1tUY2BXCsU2UcnrgFPAg9KXFn2N5J4zcoi_MVJUQwb0Aw@mail.gmail.com> <20120428205029.GB20709@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <CADSoG1tVAHVoi3fCtXT+ZRpywJ2w_jcMXgCfoNVEaoLVPGA7JA@mail.gmail.com> <20120429004549.GA22599@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <CADSoG1ss2n9Y8GpwEoYB1tFKXf5r3hL7cgRfCxTYooK+SFvCvw@mail.gmail.com> <4F9EBDE7.8060202@cygwin.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4F9EBDE7.8060202@cygwin.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie.com@cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com

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!"

cgf

--
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