Re: "shouted down", "shot down", apologies

["Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Warren Young" <warren@etr-usa.com>
<snip>

> ...and you now allow "contrib" packages.  For the longest time, Cygwin
> was just a GNU environment for Windows.  These days, I think of Cygwin
> as "Linux for Windows", what with all the new packages attached to it.
>
> Which, by the way, leads me back to another proposal I've made that
> never went anywhere: a setup.exe option allowing a minimal Cygwin
> install.  This one requires code to be convincing, I know.

My turn to be unpopular. Here's a hypothetical question: If development to
allow such a setup.exe was in progress, where would you see it (assuming
nothing has hit CVS yet)? cygwin-developers@cygwin.com maybe? Or perhaps
cygwin-patches@cygwin.com?

Well both those lists have seen significant activity towards such a
setup.exe in the last fortnight. We've coded per package dependencies and
package cetgorisation, with only certaion categories defaulting to install.

The point? This is all publicly available information, in the "expected
place" that you could have looked at before making "your point". A point
that was agreed with by Chris when you made it ~2-3 months ago (and the
answer then was "code it".

This gets me fairly annoyed. You make a valid point, are told "put up or
shut up" (a fair comment IMO), don't do anything for x months, and then make
the same point again, when some of us folk have being doing something about
it.

If you're going to throw suggestions, at least spend the ~30 seconds it
would have taken to search for "setup" on the cygwin-patches archive.

Rob


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/