X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4B5DE824.6030802@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:51:16 -0600
From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: FLTK versions in Cygwin [was: Re: units: update, FHS compliance]
References: <657633 DOT 34813 DOT qm AT web25501 DOT mail DOT ukl DOT yahoo DOT com> <4B5B16A5 DOT 4080104 AT go4more DOT de> <4B5BAEC3 DOT 1050507 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <4B5C60A0 DOT 4050106 AT go4more DOT de> <4B5C9702 DOT 3060908 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <4B5CDF1E DOT 2010107 AT go4more DOT de> <4B5CF76F DOT 5070308 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <4B5D7921 DOT 6060004 AT go4more DOT de>
In-Reply-To: <4B5D7921.6060004@go4more.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
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

On 25/01/2010 04:57, Albrecht Schlosser wrote:
> Point taken. But unfortunately the FLTK community decided it the
> other way with a majority of 74% (this must have been in or before
> 2003):
>
> http://www.fltk.org/poll.php?r1
>
> Thus this is not likely to be changed. Sorry.

Since when are matters such as this decided by opinion polls?  I bet 
most of the voters didn't use Cygwin or even know what it is.  Did you 
have a poll to decide how FLTK should be built on Linux?  Didn't think 
so.  I am NOT impressed.

Like any other platform, the only people that should have a say in any 
package's behaviour on Cygwin are the Cygwin managers and maintainers. 
We have made Cygwin a *NIX/X11 platform, and we have decided that gcc 
will not support -mno-cygwin (which was broken anyway).  *That* is the 
ONLY opinion that should matter in this discussion.

Unfortunately this attitude is by no means limited to FLTK, and any 
frustration with this topic is based more on the frequency of this sort 
of thinking than with FLTK in particular.


Yaakov

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