Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/11/01/09:45:09
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 10:10:24PM -0500, CBFalconer wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 06:58:03PM -0500, CBFalconer wrote:
>>
>> >Unfortunately that is all the data there is. I don't expect a magic
>> >wand. The problem is probably in the gui stuff gdb is calling anyhow.
>> >W98 is not noted for system protection. However ignoring it is NOT the
>> >right answer.
>>
>> Noting that a string on the screen says "i686", concluding that since
>> you don't have a i686 this is the cause of all of your problems, and
>> continuing to hold to that belief after you've been told it is unlikely,
>> is not the right answer either.
>
>I did NOT say that. I did say, in effect, that I was speculating,
>and in one message that it would be worthwhile to record and
>publicize what a package was compiled for.
The i686 that you have latched onto is meaningless. Publicizing it in
any way would be pointless. Every package that I provide is compiled
with that target triplet. The cygwin DLL is built that way, 'ls' is
built that way, 'bison' is built that way, 'gcc' is built that
way. The 'i686' just means that it is an Intel x86 CPU.
>> >Maybe a few mirrors should be set aside for systems with other
>> >configurations.
>>
>> And now we segue into YA misconception this time it's about how
>> mirrors work.
>>
>> What fun.
>
>Maybe the word is wrong, but such a separation (assuming that
>there is a reason to do it at all) would make matching packages to
>machine capabilities trivial. The user, via setup or the
>equivalent, selects a machine type, and the appropriate list of
>'mirrors' appears. Each such 'mirror' does its updating from an
>appropriate set of source directories.
Right. You don't understand how mirrors work. Mirrors are independent
entities who just take periodic snapshots of the cygwin release
directory at sources.redhat.com. There is no coordination on this side.
There is no traffic cop saying "You! Over there! You mirror that
directory!"
I have no idea why you are still suggesting this after I have repeatedly
said that this was a nonissue. Hence the "sarcasm".
>I fail to see the usefulness of sarcasm here. Or should I assume
>that, like Microsoft, perfection has already been attained and
>that questioning is futile? Have you met Dan Pop yet? He is very
>knowledgeable.
If I was just like Microsoft, I'd just be ignoring you whether you had
a good suggestion or (like this one) an ill-considered one.
cgf
--
Please do not send me personal email with cygwin questions or observations.
Use the resources at http://cygwin.com/ .
--
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/
- Raw text -