On Aug 16 14:17, Bob Rossi wrote: > > >I think your solution is well stated. Does anyone know who was > > >maintaining the old patch to make, so that a discussion with that > > >person could be made more substantial on a technical level? > > > > And ^^^this^^^ is a perfect example of why this discussion is so > > frustrating. > > > > Does someone *really* have to tell you who was "maintaining the old > > patch"? If you really need to be told this then you really don't have > > the right to an opinion on this subject at all since you clearly haven't > > been paying any attention. > > I think you are all to knowledgable about cygwin and should step back > and think about people that use Cygwin as a black box and understand > absolutly nothing about it or it's development process. The frustration
This has nothing to do with Cygwin's development process. Cygwin is a POSIX environment after all. It's one of if's design targets to get rid of the DOS paths. People using Cygwin with DOS paths are using Cygwin for something it was not designed for. This whole complaint comes up because people are using Cygwin in a non-standard way. I'm wondering why nobody complains that Linux doesn't understand drive letters. > you are expressing is understandable to me. However, with a little > managerial effort on your part, you could use your knowledge (if you so > choose) to help the rest of us organize a productive way to develop a > patch to the upstream make. I thought Corinna spoke very well on this > matter, and is why I even bothered responding to this list. Maybe you got me wrong. I have a very strange feeling about getting told my point of view would be right, while in the same sentence you're kicking cgf's ass. Just for the records: My design goals for Cygwin are that it works fine as a POSIX environment, not that it works fine to run DOS tools. That's a nice side-effect at best. Whatever the outcome of this make problem, I fully agree to what Chris said in his previous mail. This discussion is enormously frustrating. There are solutions available, but everybody just keeps repeating how bad everything got. And on top of that we get told how evil our point of view about how to use Cygwin is. Maybe you should reevaluate what Cygwin is designed for instead of trying to strangle Cygwin in some other direction. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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/
