Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/05/28/15:58:25
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 09:46:34PM +0200, Baurjan Ismagulov wrote:
>On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 03:05:50PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>You use the same technique as if you were testing another version of
>>linux. Or you'd backup your system prior to updating cygwin. It is
>>not likely that you could have two installations running on the same
>>system with no bleed between them.
>
>Well, with UML I have a reasonable environment to test most of things I
>have to deal with. I would be happy to see the same for cygwin.
UML is not linux. It is a mechanism for running linux in userspace. If you
want to implement something like that for Windows, more power to you. Or
you could just run VMware.
>>Having two versions of cygwin working at the same time is not a goal
>>for the cygwin project.
>
>Does this mean that if someone comes with a clean patch doing that, it
>would not be accepted? Once it were there, it wouldn't require
>maintenance, any kind of user support can be explicitly disclaimed.
>What kind of problems do you expect?
I thought from this discussion that no one has the technical skills or
time necessary to use the facilities that are already part of cygwin.
Asking whether we would accept patches seems either rhetorical or at
least premature.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -