> On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 09:07:57PM -0800, Paul G. wrote:
> >> Redirecting this, too.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 03:18:00PM -0800, Paul G. wrote:
> >> >Well, if your Win32 system doesn't support links (NT4 shortcuts), this
> >> >isn't really surprising.
> >>
> >> Did you actually read this email or were you just scanning for keywords
> >> like the word "link"?
> >
> >Heh, nice bait...but I won't bite...seems like you're not in a good
> >mood right now...
>
> Funny how your email does that to me.
>
> To recap and elucidate:
>
> 1) This is not a shortcut problem. If it was the mailing list would be
> flooded with complaints.
>
> 2) setup.exe produces old-style cygwin shortcuts.
>
> 3) The user is allowed to assume that -mno-cygwin works fine. It should
> be working much better in gcc 3.2 than it ever has before.
>
> 4) You offered faulty advice when you the correct advice was to install
> the gcc-mingw package. Please don't go on the "you know that, I know that"
> riff when you never even suggested "that".
What would have been the point to repeat something that was already known by
you, at
the very least? What was it I heard about "me toos"? Perhaps it is that there is
more value
for some to pointing out falings of others rather than solutions for everyone...?
>
> 5) Please do not suggest using other packages as a way to solve cygwin
> problems.
Fair enough, for as long as -mno-cygwin switch, or use thereof, is not being
deprecated...if, however, -mno-cygwin is being deprecated or the use thereof is being
"officially" deprecated, then what's the point in talking about it in the first place?
>
> 6) workaround: A temporary kluge used to bypass, mask or otherwise avoid
> a bug or misfeature in some system.
I know how you hate it when people tell you they know something and you think
they do
not...even so, I have to say it again...you know that and I know that ("that", in this
case being
the "definition of a workaround").
> When something is not working you can't claim a workaround.
Do I need to say "duh"? Or would it be better to say, "You know that and I
know that,
therefore it is not an issue here and in fact we do agree" even if you may prefer to
believe
that I do not know or agree with you that "when something is _not_ working you _can't_
claim (it as) a (valid) workaround."...?
Paul G.
--
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/
