Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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, 7 Sep 2004 17:38:50 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated cygwin Package: procmail-3.22-10
Message-ID: <20040907213850.GA4758@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20040907175214 DOT GC11849 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <NUTMEGYMLR6utNNYURC000011f8 AT NUTMEG DOT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <NUTMEGYMLR6utNNYURC000011f8@NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 07:21:07PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
>> It certainly is a correct and informative statement 
>
>...but utterly irrelevant since a) Cygwin isn't Red Hat Linux and b) this
>particular package of procmail is not the RHL one to which the statement
>refers.

The main web page for cygwin mentions that it is supposed to be an
emulation of Linux.  I don't think it's an error to mention that
procmail is used on the most popular version of Linux, especially when
the company who produces the most popular version of Linux also sponsors
Cygwin.

>Might as well say "The procmail program is used by Solaris 2.5 for all
>local mail delivery" in a cygwin packaging description....  [assuming
>that that version of solaris did in fact use procmail; otherwise you
>could substitute any other open source app that also exists in a cygwin
>version to make the same point.]

If Cygwin claimed to be emulating Solaris, then this would be a useful
datapoint.  Since it doesn't make that claim, I don't think your analogy
is very apt.

>>and it is one that
>> wouldn't be correct if you changed "Red Hat" to "Cygwin".
>
><koff> Isn't this a bit of a strawman argument?  I don't recall suggesting
>making such a change, so I'm not sure what relevance the possible validity
>or otherwise of such a change is to this topic....

When someone talks about cut/paste errors, usually there are two things
that are a problem.  One is that a word is used incorrectly, as when
people send announcements to cygwin-announce which are cut from a
previous announcement and neglect to replace a package name.  The other
is when something should not have been pasted at all and needs to be
deleted.

I addressed both in my message.

>>So, IMHO, there's not anything wrong with it.
>
>Well YJM, we all knew that!

I don't exactly understand how my mild defense of Jason would be characterized
as "M" but, this discussion is really not even worth the electrons that its
displayed on, so I'll stop now.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/