From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29387 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2002 17:08:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact insight-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: insight-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29364 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2002 17:08:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d02.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.34) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Sep 2002 17:08:18 -0000 Received: from nwourms@netscape.net by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id o.1b4.1a5229e (16226) for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 13:08:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netscape.net ([130.127.122.186]) by air-in02.mx.aol.com (v88.20) with ESMTP id MAILININ22-0905130816; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 13:08:16 -0400 Message-ID: <3D778F74.8000100@netscape.net> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 10:08:00 -0000 From: Nicholas Wourms User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: insight@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Various problems and/or questions on Insight 5.2.1 References: <3D777740.5030702@netscape.net> <20020905163916.GD16827@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-q3/txt/msg00128.txt.bz2 Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 11:24:48AM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote: > >>On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 01:20:40PM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote: >> >>>If you do go this course, might I recomend that you use Cygwin/XFree >>>for the gui front end? >> >>On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >>>We really can't require people to install X in order to get a graphical >>>debugger for cygwin. >> >>Please understand that all I'm trying to do is help facilitate a >>reasonable solution to a current problem. I mean no disrespect or >>malice in my intentions. Can we please keep this friendly, as I know >>this subject tends to bring out emotional debate. > > > I've put back the part of your email where you suggested that using > XFree86 was an alternative way to get insight working on Windows. > > You are inexplicably inferring some kind of emotional response from my > simple statement of fact. You would be well advised to stick to actual > issues and avoid admonitions based on supposition. No actually I'm referring to the previous times this was discussed on the cygwin mailing list. Each time, things got a little ugly, my intent was to head this type of reaction off at the pass. I was only trying to be polite. > >>>I suppose but, while I can't direct people's time, it sure seems like >>>focusing on fixing the native insight is a much much higher priority. >> >>I agree, having a working insight would be nice. Still, you did tell >>people that further discussion of this should be done on this list. > > > So, discuss away. I think I made my end of the views clear. That's how > discussions work, right? > One would hope so, still I feel like I had to justify my post. >>That is what I'm doing. My intent is not to de-rail the goal of a >>working insight. > > > Well, IMO, suggesting that cygwin users would want to install X in order > to do debugging really is rather of a derailment of the issue at hand. Jeeze, it isn't like asking for 100MB space, or even 10. However if you read the entire post, I was recanting my original position on that idea. > >>Anyhow, after a brief discussion with Chuck, having two versions would >>be the best compromise. > > > I doubt that few in the insight mailing list know who "Chuck" is or why > his opinion would hold any weight. However, for the record, I think it > is clear that quoting "and so and so agrees with me" doesn't really > advance the discussion very much. That was primarily aimed at you, you take it as you wish... > I really don't see what X has to do with the discussion of fixing > tcl/tk/insight. It seems to me like you are dragging an entirely > different issue into this discussion. On the contrary, it has a lot to do with fixing tcl/tk's functionality in cygwin. It also has to do with fixing the functionality in a way that a slow, but growing segment of the userbase desires. Also, I was further elaborating in response to Keith's statements. If I wasn't clear about this before, then let me be clear. My original post was a suggestion on how things could be improved if there was a plan to rework the tcl/tk implementation. Cheers, Nicholas