This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: just got wrong DLLs or wrong mutt.exe [attn mutt maintainer]
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:05:17 -0500
- Subject: Re: just got wrong DLLs or wrong mutt.exe [attn mutt maintainer]
- References: <20070224204033.GA88109@shell.mho.net> <45E0A645.email@example.com> <20070224212806.GA6381@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20070226104353.GA5577@calimero.vinschen.de> <20070226135650.GB27253@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 08:56:50AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:43:53AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>[Redirected to cygwin-apps]
>>On Feb 24 16:28, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 01:55:33PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> >According to Tom Hall on 2/24/2007 1:40 PM:
>>> >>I think there's a bug in the Cygwin setup
>>> >>The problem turned out to be that the version of mutt.exe I got was
>>> >>looking for /usr/bin/cygcrypto-0.9.7.dll and /usr/bin/cygssl-0.9.7.dll
>>> >>but setup.exe sent me /usr/bin/cygcrypto-0.9.8.dll and
>>> >>/usr/bin/cygssl-0.9.8.dll. After copying the .7 versions from another
>>> >>machine, mutt seems to be working fine :-).
>>> >Actually, it means that Corinna's statement that "None of the packages
>>> >in the Cygwin net distribution is built against openssl 0.9.7 anymore."
>>> >in http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2007-02/msg00016.html is wrong.
>>> >The mutt maintainer needs to upload a new package in order to correct
>>> >this. Meanwhile, I will let Corinna or the mutt maintainer decide if
>>> >the mutt setup.hint should be adjusted to point to openssl097
>>> >compatibility package instead of openssl.
>>> I'm in the process of generating a new mutt package now.
>>Ok, now the mutt package requires openssl097, which will work better for
>>setup, but that's not the solution. Openssl 0.9.8 is part of the Cygwin
>>distro since July 2005.
>>I don't remember the history here, but for the mutt package I have two
>>maintainers in my list, Gary and cgf, cgf with a question mark.
>>Can anybody of you two please upload a new mutt version which links
>>against openssl 0.9.8?
>Uh. What part of "I'm in the process of generating a new mut package
>now" was unclear?