From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4855 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2002 01:47:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 4845 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2002 01:47:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rich-paul.net) (65.34.21.74) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2002 01:47:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 18413 invoked by uid 1001); 24 Apr 2002 01:02:35 -0000 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 19:00:00 -0000 From: rich-paul@rich-paul.net To: "Larry Hall \(RFK Partners, Inc\)" , cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Outlaw Cygwin Install Message-ID: <20020423210235.A18362@monster.rich-paul.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.16i In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20020423162731.0276d7b0@pop.ma.ultranet.com>; from lhall@rfk.com on Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 04:39:03PM -0400 X-Operating-System: Linux monster 2.4.17-SMPs X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01331.txt.bz2 > That works so long as the users come to that site to install and that site > for support of the install. The current Cygwin policy is to offer email > "support" for software it distributes. It's impractical to do otherwise. > Also, the hope is that people who want to add features to anything Cygwin > offers will do so in the context of the existing facilities. In this case, > the desire is that people will enhance setup vs making some home-grown thing. > This list would obviously entertain questions on install issues from the > Cygwin distributed setup, no matter what functionality it has. So the > policy that you see as being not liberal enough is one that merely attempts > to keep the group focused both in a software development sense and in a > support sense. It doesn't exclude functionality. It just seeks to add it > in the framework that exists already. I hope that makes some sense to you. > Sure. I don't have a problem with the list policy. If somebody got one of my products, hacked or misused it, and then tried to get me to fix 'bugs', I wouldn't be too friendly. That's why I thought a separate list for unsupported uses might be in order. I didn't intend to criticize. The reasons I didn't contribute what I'd done back to cygwin are pretty clear if you've read the thing: It's a butt ugly hack, and it's not really general. It does exactly what I need, but I suspect that most people don't need that. Actually, there's a third reason, which is that when I use this hack, I install a great deal of non-cygwin software that I have no right to distribute or contribute, so even if somebody did put similar functionality into setup.exe, I would probably have to continue to do an ugly hack on my own. -- Got freedom? Vote Libertarian: http://www.lp.org -- 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/