Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 15:26:54 -0400
To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: release it?
Message-ID: <20000415152654.A19030@cygnus.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cgf AT cygnus DOT com, cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
References: <20000414212124 DOT A12438 AT cygnus DOT com> <200004151837 DOT NAA01769 AT hp2 DOT xraylith DOT wisc DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.8i
In-Reply-To: <200004151837.NAA01769@hp2.xraylith.wisc.edu>; from khan@NanoTech.Wisc.EDU on Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 01:37:26PM -0500

On Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 01:37:26PM -0500, Mumit Khan wrote:
>Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com> writes:
>> I'd like to release what we have.
>> 
>> It's not perfect but it is perfectable.
>> 
>> Any objections?
>
>None whatsoever. 
>
>There will of course be problems, and those problems will get fixed 
>over time. With the new "component-based" setup, it'll be easier to 
>update specifiic components than say downloading a large full.exe.

I'm wondering if the problems that Mo is seeing with mingw are due to
the fact that I changed the way /usr/bin and /usr/lib are mounted.  We
had agreed that /usr/bin would be an alias for /bin but it was
implemented the other way around.  I changed this so that it was what we
agreed.

Maybe something in the relative path lookup is screwed up due to this.

Anyway, I don't think this is a show stopper but we should keep an
eye on it.

cgf