Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20020423215430.0231b990@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 21:55:06 -0400 To: rich-paul AT rich-paul DOT net, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" Subject: Re: Outlaw Cygwin Install In-Reply-To: <20020423210235.A18362@monster.rich-paul.net> References: <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20020423162731 DOT 0276d7b0 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:02 PM 4/23/2002, rich-paul AT rich-paul DOT net wrote: > > That works so long as the users come to that site to install and that site > > for support of the install. The current Cygwin policy is to offer email > > "support" for software it distributes. It's impractical to do otherwise. > > Also, the hope is that people who want to add features to anything Cygwin > > offers will do so in the context of the existing facilities. In this case, > > the desire is that people will enhance setup vs making some home-grown thing. > > This list would obviously entertain questions on install issues from the > > Cygwin distributed setup, no matter what functionality it has. So the > > policy that you see as being not liberal enough is one that merely attempts > > to keep the group focused both in a software development sense and in a > > support sense. It doesn't exclude functionality. It just seeks to add it > > in the framework that exists already. I hope that makes some sense to you. > > > >Sure. I don't have a problem with the list policy. If somebody >got one of my products, hacked or misused it, and then tried to >get me to fix 'bugs', I wouldn't be too friendly. That's why I >thought a separate list for unsupported uses might be in order. I >didn't intend to criticize. > >The reasons I didn't contribute what I'd done back to cygwin are >pretty clear if you've read the thing: It's a butt ugly hack, >and it's not really general. It does exactly what I need, but I >suspect that most people don't need that. Actually, there's a >third reason, which is that when I use this hack, I install a >great deal of non-cygwin software that I have no right to >distribute or contribute, so even if somebody did put similar >functionality into setup.exe, I would probably have to continue >to do an ugly hack on my own. Sounds fair to me. Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX -- 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/