This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Gcc 3.2 -mno-cygwin
- From: "Paul G." <pgarceau at attbi dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 20:17:48 -0800
- Subject: Re: Gcc 3.2 -mno-cygwin
- Organization: Paul G.
- References: <3DFE40AD.8497.1830AAB@localhost>
- Reply-to: pgarceau at attbi dot com
> 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
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."...?
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html