This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Goldstar please (Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: xinit-1.2.0-2)
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:42:10 -0500
- Subject: Goldstar please (Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: xinit-1.2.0-2)
- References: <announce.4B3A6D32.email@example.com> <4B3A824F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4B3A9187.email@example.com> <4B3A9F4B.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com
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