Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 08:45:10AM -0800, Jim Kleckner wrote:
So, if you're a Unix guy since 1978, that puts you in a unique category. You don't qualify as a FAQ.
I don't quite understand this. I don't qualify to write FAQ entries or shouldn't be allowed to use them?
I have very strong reservations about filling up documentation with every conceivable combination of advice that we could possibly think of. Adding rationales to stop Unix guys from shooting themselves in the foot should not be a focus of the FAQ. The FAQ is there to give advice to people on what to do, not to provide rationales for why they shouldn't do other things that pop into their heads.
Then strike the link text and limit it to the workaround of adding the bin to the system path. My text was a suggested starting point.
Look, all I'm trying to do here is save time for other people, not waste all of our time. The notion that the email list should be the primary reference for this kind of issue is wrong. And it shouldn't be this hard to try to help out either.
The solution that the DLL has to be in the system path is not required for a sanctioned Cygwin release. But, then, we've seen before that clamwin insists on running in a non-cygwin environment. I don't want to be in the business of adding advice to the FAQ for fixing up other people's problems.
Nobody said the workaround was required.
I am very grateful for the great lengths you go to to fix other people's problems who use cygwin.
If this is a problem with clamwin then people should be lobbying them for a fix, not suggesting that the Cygwin FAQ has to be modified as a workaround.
Agree that clamwin should be fixed. I don't use it and don't care to use it. But then I share the compute resources.
Jim
- "It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness"
-- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
