> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 07:31:07PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: > >Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > >> On 29/12/2009 16:27, Charles Wilson wrote: > >>> Sounds like a good idea, but I wish I'd known this was coming before > >>> wasting time on: > >>> > >>> * Improve checkX behavior when used as 'barrier' in startxwin. > >> > >> Sorry about that, Chuck, but this was just the latest of a long string > >> of issues involving these scripts. We've been talking about replacing > >> them for a while, and the recent traffic on the list was enough of an > >> impetus to make me finally stop bandaging the scripts and find a better > >> solution. Plus, we gain argument handling and .startxwinrc, something > >> the scripts would likely never do. > > > >Like I said, it sounds to me like a good idea; there's just so many > >issues that can go (and have gone) wrong in these scripts -- PLUS, whose > >idea was it to have TWO, one .sh and one .bat?!!? Yeeesh. We're well > >rid of them. > > Yes, in fact, I think this deserves a gold star. These things have been > a pain in the neck for years.
Awarded. http://cygwin.com/goldstars/#YS -- 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
