This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Consensus about man and doc X11 directory structure


Harold L Hunt II wrote:
Charles Wilson wrote:
All of this mucking about with tk and insight requires the concurrence of -- and oodles of extra work by -- the tk maintainer and the insight maintainer. Plus, <speculation alert> given the centrality of the debugger to the GNUPro product, this sort of change might meet resistance from the PowersThatBe channeled thru our local Benign Dictator(s).

Look, it has been made quite clear to us on several occasions that Red Hat doesn't pay for anyone in their company to do development on Cygwin, so I say, "Who is Red Hat?". Why do they matter if they aren't contributing to the project and are either holding us hostage to supporting some long-gone product or secretly using our efforts to sell a couple million a year of some product that uses our work?

Well, granted that cgf (current maintainer of tk and insight IIRC) no longer works for Red Hat, so perhaps their needs are no longer as important to him as they once were.


OTOH, *personally*, I don't want the debugger to require X, for speed issues if nothing else. However, that's really cgf's decision so...

How many people feel the same way when this argument about supporting Insight via Win32 Tk comes up?

... but I would
just like to know how Red Hat gets to make decisions in this community that seems to get very little investment from them.

I *said* it was speculation, and *speculated* that "pressure" might be applied -- not that decisions would be imposed -- by RH. Given Corinna's post, it seems that my speculation was (A) wrong (B) out-of-date, and (C) in all other ways immaterial.


So we can drop the "WWRHD?" (What Would Red Hat Do?) from this thread, and move on to "what is the best(*) thing for the cygwin open-source community" in this regard?

(*) where the definition of "best" is in the eye of the beholder: least disruptive? Most theoretically self-consistent? Provides path future growth/enhancement? etc...

--
Chuck


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]