X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Eric Blake Subject: Re: Cygwin 1.7 Installation on Server 2008 with Terminal Services Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:07:06 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <297343D29C14AA4D822142893ABEAEF3067B857F AT srv1163ex1 DOT flightsafety DOT com> <20090622153241 DOT GZ5039 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <297343D29C14AA4D822142893ABEAEF3067B8656 AT srv1163ex1 DOT flightsafety DOT com> <20090623090152 DOT GF5039 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <297343D29C14AA4D822142893ABEAEF3067B876F AT srv1163ex1 DOT flightsafety DOT com> <20090623155317 DOT GB4773 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Corinna Vinschen cygwin.com> writes: > Bash isn't the only affected binary so it's still worth the FAQ entry. > But, never mind, I just created one. The FAQ should mention the 'rebase' package, not the 'rebaseall' package. And not to sound anxious, but are we going to have a new binutils and gcc release prior to cygwin 1.7 going golden? I've noticed that Dave has made lots of patches on the binutils list lately. -- Eric Blake -- 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