Re: Xterm, rxvt, mrxvt, etc....

[Thorsten Kampe <thorsten at thorstenkampe dot de>]

* Thomas Dickey (Sun, 6 May 2007 10:49:23 -0400 (EDT))
> On Sun, 6 May 2007, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > Thomas Dickey wrote:
> >> On Sat, 5 May 2007, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >> 
> >>> The fact is, rxvt upstream is dead, dead, dead. It has shuffled off this 
> >>> mortal coil.  Joined the choir invisible. It is an EX-terminal. The 
> >>> terminal is terminal.
> >> 
> >> thanks for agreeing with me.  It has no maintainer.
> >
> > Not so fast, Thomas.  I did not and do not agree with your previous posts: 
> > neither of your messages claimed that "upstream rxvt has no maintainer".  (If 
> > they did, then I would have agreed with that.)   Your messages claimed that 
> > rxvt had no cygwin maintainer.  That claim is false: I am the cygwin 
> > maintainer for rxvt.
> 
> I don't much care for the role of "cygwin maintainer" in a discussion 
> related to _support_ [...]

You are confusing things. Quoting you: '"support" is relative. There's 
apparently no X maintainer [...]'. If you don't 'care for the role of 
"cygwin maintainer"' then that's obviously nonsense as X is maintained 
upstream.

Thorsten


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