Tue Sep 27 14:15:00 GMT 2005
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
You have been around here long enough to know that personal email is not
the way to address these issues. As such, I have forwarded this reply to
the proper mailing list and set the Reply To appropriately. Please honor
this. The lack of doing so makes it less likely that your request will be
> Please go back to bzipping the manpages like they have been in previous
I see now that this was the case.
However, the source package that Harold gave me to start with did not do
this, nor does the current version of the gbs. As such, I'd prefer not to
support a local gbs patch just to change its default behavior. If,
however, there is consensus that this is "the way it should be" (TM), I'd
be happy to submit a gbs patch.
> Also, please don't just arbitrarily drop the static libs.
Why? None of the dependent xorg X libs are available staticly. How does
having a static lesstif help anyone? If you can present a reasonable
argument for keeping them I will consider it, but no for an unfounded
Is there any general consensus on either of these two points? ie:
1.) bziping vs gziping man pages.
2.) When to package static libs too.
Google didn't turn up much quickly. Thanks.
Senior Realtime Software Engineer
VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems
the best safety device in any aircraft is a well-trained pilot...
More information about the Cygwin-apps