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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> [] On Behalf Of Sean McMahon
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 2:57 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of 
> setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
> I for one appreciate the clarification as I sent a detailed 
> bug-report to this person assuming they were the maintainer. 

Hi Sean,

A couple of things:

- One should never send any project-related questions directly to a
maintainer.  The mailing lists exist so that the entire community may all
benefit from the questions and answers asked there.
- I have never been the setup maintainer, nor have I ever claimed to be (in
public or private), nor have I ever attempted to imply that I was.
- I am responsible for a good portion of setup's UI.  It used to be a series
of dialog boxes.  It is now a "Wizard"-style UI.  I did that.
- I am glad that Chris' comments clarified that.  Let us all hope that he
applies this helpful service across the board, and not just for those who
call him on his often bizarre behavior here.  Well, except for the false
accusations of dishonesty part, I don't think that's very helpful to
> My question as I've asked before is, can or is someone 
> working on improving accessibility of setup.exe for those of 
> us who have to use windows via a screenreader and keyboard.  
> Many of the buttons and controlls do not get focus and can't 
> be opperated in the normal manner.

As I hopefully addressed in my response to you, to the best of my knowledge
nobody is working on this.  As to the question of "can", the answer there is
a most resounding "yes".  There's plenty that needs doing in setup.

Gary R. Van Sickle
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Faylor" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 9:37 PM
> Subject: 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
> > me.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > po-tayt-o/po-tatt-o
> >
> > >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
> > clarify.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > cgf
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe info:
> > Problem reports:
> > Documentation:
> > FAQ:         
> --
> Unsubscribe info:
> Problem reports:
> Documentation:
> FAQ:         

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

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