This is the mail archive of the cygwin 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: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent

On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:21:08PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>Chris, why are you doing this to yourself?

Come on, GRVS.  You know the answer to that!  It's fun!

I'm also doing it to help you, as I have repeatedly stated.  You now
have the outlet you've been craving for almost two years.  I'm sure this
has finally gotten your blood pumping after years of non-response from

Also, if you must know, I'm getting something out of this, too.
I've got a wicked cold and am confined to the house for a few days.

>As somebody falsely accused of dishonesty by you, Chris, how could I
>not mind it?  I don't like being falsely accused of lying any more than
>you like being rightfully accused of making uncalled-for rude comments.


>I impatiently await your public explanation, if not retraction, if not
>apology, for this disturbing new low in your behavior in this forum.

I think I see where you're trying to lead this.  Let me see if I can

Yes, you did contribute code and so you are historically "responsible"
for pieces of setup.exe (unless they've been rewritten by now, which is
doubtful, I guess).  You are not, however, responsible for actively
maintaining or supporting setup.exe currently.

A casual reader of this mailing list might have been led to believe that
you were somehow "responsible" for setup.exe as in the "I have a problem
will you help me with it" sense.  So, I stepped in to clarify.

It's difficult to say (although we can certainly guess) which definition
of "responsible" you were talking about so please take the "keeping you
honest" comment as "trying to make you communicate a little more
clearly".  I certainly was not intending to imply that you were some
vile, loathsome committer of falsehoods.  I'm sorry that you took it
that way.

But, if you stop to think about it, if I was really doing something like
that then, with my awful email style, wouldn't it be more likely that
I'd say something like:

"In what way would you think that you could possibly be considered to be
responsible for setup.exe?  You haven't contributed anything to the
project in some time.  I can't see any useful reason for you to be
representing yourself in this matter.  This message does nothing to
advance this discussion."


Instead, I was trying to emulate your lighthearted, playful style.
Apparently, I didn't emulate you as well as I thought since surely, if I
had, you would have been instructed by my response just as you
continually try to lead me towards the light with all of your
thoughtful, humorous (if slightly repetitive) missives.

I guess my ham-fistedness touched a nerve and so does rate another
apology.  I am sorry that I could not properly emulate your style so
as to make my intent clearer to you.


Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

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