This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Goldstar please (Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: xinit-1.2.0-2)
- From: Andrew Schulman <schulman dot andrew at epamail dot epa dot gov>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:30:43 -0500
- Subject: Re: Goldstar please (Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: xinit-1.2.0-2)
- References: <announce.4B3A6D32.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4B3A824F.email@example.com> <4B3A9187.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4B3A9F4B.email@example.com> <20091230044209.GA3909@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 07:31:07PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> >> On 29/12/2009 16:27, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >>> Sounds like a good idea, but I wish I'd known this was coming before
> >>> wasting time on:
> >>> * Improve checkX behavior when used as 'barrier' in startxwin.
> >> Sorry about that, Chuck, but this was just the latest of a long string
> >> of issues involving these scripts. We've been talking about replacing
> >> them for a while, and the recent traffic on the list was enough of an
> >> impetus to make me finally stop bandaging the scripts and find a better
> >> solution. Plus, we gain argument handling and .startxwinrc, something
> >> the scripts would likely never do.
> >Like I said, it sounds to me like a good idea; there's just so many
> >issues that can go (and have gone) wrong in these scripts -- PLUS, whose
> >idea was it to have TWO, one .sh and one .bat?!!? Yeeesh. We're well
> >rid of them.
> Yes, in fact, I think this deserves a gold star. These things have been
> a pain in the neck for years.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple