[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev Re: Building Lynx2-8-4 - when did complicated/undebuggable
Re: lynx-dev Re: Building Lynx2-8-4 - when did complicated/undebuggable "configure" scripts become the norm?
Wed, 28 Feb 2001 04:53:55 -0500
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 12:39:13PM -0800, Doug Kaufman wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > the Microsoft one. I've cygwin b20.1 on my older machine, but probably
> > will not install cygwin on the newer one since their downloads (according
> > to McAfee) have viruses attached.
> This sounds like an old false positive from McAfee. Is your McAfee
> engine up to date, in addition to your dat files? You should be using
> the superdats only to make sure the engine is up to date. Have you
> sent the suspect files to McAfee? I follow alt.comp.virus fairly
> closely. This would have created a large volume of posts if true.
another thought - since McAfee and cygwin do not coexist, it's likely
that not many people are using McAfee to screen downloads for cygwin.
That is, the version of cygwin which I do have as well as their faq
indicate that McAfee/cygwin cannot agree on who should own the dynamic
memory pool - one of the things I meant to check on was whether anything
had been done on cygwin's side to fix that. Perhaps McAfee is repairing
their side by treating cygwin as a virus...
Thomas E. Dickey <address@hidden>
; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden
Re: lynx-dev Building Lynx2-8-4 - when did complicated/undebuggable "configure" scripts become the norm?, Doug Kaufman, 2001/02/27