Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
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)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
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/