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
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 18:47:03 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: try try again
Message-ID: <20020528224703.GA18224@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20020528211054 DOT VBYY13408 DOT mtiwmhc22 DOT worldnet DOT att DOT net AT webmail DOT worldnet DOT att DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20020528211054.VBYY13408.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 09:10:52PM +0000, perlspinr AT att DOT net wrote:
>>If you need better information, use uname.
>
>I need proper information for makefiles to get, and I *am* using uname
>to get that info.  It's wrong too (I am NOT at that system this pm and
>cannot double-triple- check that, but am very close to sure, and if I
>was wrong I'll post a retraction/correction about it later, when I've
>had a chance to re-check it, if I am not banned from the List by then).
>I wouldn't have bothered the List if the solution was as simple as
>that.

That's actually far from obvious.  If uname is incorrect, this is the
first I've heard of it.  Rather than expecting the assumption of your
intelligence, why not demonstrate it by providing the information ahead
of time rather than becoming aggrieved when someone doesn't guess the
steps that you've taken to track down a problem?

>At most, I am guilty of guessing incorrectly that the shell (BASH)
>variables would come from the same place -- somewhere in the guts of
>Cygwin1.dll -- that uname gets those data.  That kind of guessing isn't
>*lazy* and it isn't flameworthy; it's an honest try at moving towards
>the solution for the problem.

On rereading my email, I can see that I should have skipped an
inappropriate "gasp!" and an "obviously".  I apologize for excessive use
of caustic words.  There was no reason for me to do that other than the
fact that I find your email style as annoying as you apparently find
mine.  I'll try to watch that in the future.

And, your assumption that bash could be getting its info from cygwin
is also not misplaced.  It is a logical assumption.

>Frankly, to be OT for a moment, I am far beyond caring what you find
>annoying, Chris -- although last I had read from you about msys I saw
>no hint that you found Earnie's project particularly objectionable --
>and that lack of caring goes (double) for Larry Hall too.

This was also the second time today that someone sought msys help
in the cygwin mailing list and I also redirected them elsewhere.

If you read this mailing list at all, you've certainly seen me and other
people mention that it is not intended as a forum for getting support on
other people's projects.  There really is no way you could miss that.
If it wasn't obvious from these responses, the words at
http://cygwin.com/lists.html should make it clear.

[rest of the personal attack deleted]

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/