Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <00d701c13c8f$03422160$391e10ac@dmonknt> From: "David Monk" To: References: <20010913160206 DOT 12047 DOT qmail AT web20006 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> <001601c13c6e$befa5330$391e10ac AT dmonknt> <20010913132946 DOT A13823 AT redhat DOT com> Subject: Re: frivolous naming suggestion Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 15:02:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 > The Cygwin net release process is more related to Linus's release of > kernels than to Red Hat's release of commercial packages. > > AFAIK, Linus does not code name his releases. > > Since Red Hat does not really release a commercial product called > "Cygwin", I think that the analogy doesn't really holds up. I get that the actual cygwin1.dll is similar to just the Linux kernel that Linus releases. But would you not consider the Cygwin net release as a type of UNIX-like distribution to a degree? Especially since it is a compilation of many packages. It seems it would make since to have "kernel" (dll) updates, but also full net distribution releases. Just a thought. David Monk -- 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/