Problem uninstalling/deleting cygwin

Peter A. Castro
Thu Jan 27 04:16:00 GMT 2005

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Larry Hall wrote:

> At 02:10 PM 1/26/2005, you wrote:
> >On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Larry Hall wrote:
> >
> >> of variations and options available that were not there heretofore.
> >> This is the reason I directed Neven back to Peter's site.  Clearly,
> >> though, if Neven and others that use the "cygwin time machine" can get
> >> what they need from the web pages to help them with any problems
> >> they have after using the "cygwin time machine", then that's great.  But
> >> my position is that folks that have a problem after using Peter's site need
> >> to consult Peter, at least at first, the same as any other 3rd party site.
> >
> >I completely agree with Larry here.  I've provided the "rope" for people
> >to "hang themselves", the least I can do is help them out when they are
> >just "dangling" there (umm...sorry for the metaphor :).  I will be adding
> >doc to the webpage talking about the perils of downgrading, but in truth
> >this subject should be noted in the normal FAQ concerning reverting to
> >the previous version as well.

I've update the document in an attempt to further clarify the position
and intent of the Time Machine and it's relation to the Cygwin project.

> It's true that installing an old version over a current version isn't a
> faux-pas that can happen simply because the "cygwin time machine" is
> used, though it's probably more likely to occur (but maybe not... I hope
> not! :-) )  The Cygwin FAQ doesn't seem to be the right place for the Cygwin
> version of this information though.  Maybe the UG is?  Joshua, what's your
> thoughts on this?

The UG might be a better place at that.  I, myself, never know quite
where a good place for these kinds of things would be.

> >> Obviously, those who disagree with me are still free to answer the
> >> inevitable posts that we'll get here about the "cygwin time machine"
> >> anyway.  With any luck, those posts will be few and far between so there
> >> will be little need to discuss how much noise of this kind is too much.
> >
> >Oh, come now, Larry.  We had a hugh thread going concering the *content*
> >of the fortune data files, which was totally off-topic for Cygwin, yet we
> >all kept on beating that horse.  Off-topic doesn't stop it from being
> >discussed anyways. :)
> Off-topic things will always be at least attempted here.  You and I are
> saying the same thing.  But just because the reality is that there will
> be off-topic discussions in the future does not mean that we shouldn't
> discourage them when they occur.  Rules are made to be broken or bent.
> But if no attempt is ever made to enforce the rules, then why have them?
> (I'm hoping that's a rhetorical question! :-) ).

But that... oh, wait, you said rhetorical... never mind :)

> FWIW, I can see that you're taking your responsibility as "cygwin time
> machine" maintainer seriously.  None of my comments in this thread are
> meant to criticize your efforts in this vein.

None taken.  But, if you would like to critic it, please do.  I try to
take seriously all comments and suggestions.

> --
> Larry Hall                    

Peter A. Castro <> or <>
	"Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

More information about the Cygwin mailing list