This is the mail archive of the cygwin-talk mailing list for the cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Eliminating -mno-cygwin from gcc.

On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 10:04:56AM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>>Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
>>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>>If you have been reading this list for any length of time then it should
>>>>be obvious that merely mentioning something in cygwin-announce is not an
>>>>adequate way to let people know about serious changes.
>>>Trust me I know; my question is why this is being handled differently
>>>than other major changes (e.g. bash), or if you're looking for a new way
>>>in general of notification, particularly as carrying out the change will
>>>confuse much fewer people than leaving the status-quo.
>>The discussion has been to augment 'setup.exe' in a way as to provide users
>>with feedback about "important" package changes in general.  It has come up
>>in the context of the gcc change but would have to apply generally.
>>"Important" would be defined by the maintainer by some mechanism.
>>Presumably, every release of package 'foo' does not trigger the "important"
>>flag. ;-)
>Maybe we should add a EULA to setup? Something like...
>By installing this software, I agree to the following:
>- I have read the release notes for any packages I am newly installing 
>or upgrading, and will not post messages to the mailing list that 
>address issues covered in the aforementioned release notes.
>- If I use Cygwin for any purpose for which it was not intended, I will 
>try very hard to resolve my own problems, or to find an appropriate 
>place to ask question. If I find it necessary to ask the Cygwin list, I 
>will apologize for asking an off-topic question and accept that I may 
>not get any help.
>- I recognize that this is Open Source Software, and that I probably did 
>not pay for it (and if I did, the developers didn't see any of that 
>money). Therefore I promise to be polite when reporting bugs, and 
>understanding of the limits on developers' time. I acknowledge that the 
>best way to get something fixed is to do it myself.
>...and I'm sure we could probably think of a few more points. :-)

I like the above but there should be a link to
in the "I recognize" part.  :-)


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]