Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:54:51 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: On Cygwin package naming and a setup.exe bug Message-ID: <20010827145451.A19590@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E329@IIS000> <3B8A9493.3090309@ece.gatech.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3B8A9493.3090309@ece.gatech.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 02:42:27PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: >Well, you have to expect some bitterness. Count the number of problem >reports generated by people who don't even use OUR setup to install >cygwin itself. Geez. Here is what I said: *>I'd have to get a ruling from other developers to see if this screws up *>anything else. I've got mixed feelings about putting concessions for *>other packages in setup. It isn't really supposed to be a general *>purpose installation tool. This is the second time in a couple of months that I've gotten a violent reaction to my suggesting that I'd ask for other people's input. I really don't get it. cgf -- 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/