This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: cygwin bughunt (FAQ alert?)
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:16:13 -0500
- Subject: Re: cygwin bughunt (FAQ alert?)
- References: <79F81D5F4790D344B05F489CE2AC8AB71097D8@dubexdc03.dubex.net> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <41F86B25.62E90624@dessent.net> <20050127140039.GI23885@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20050127140739.GA18704@cygbert.vinschen.de>
- Reply-to: Talk Amongst Yourselves <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 03:07:39PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jan 27 09:00, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 08:16:37PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
>>>I was actually a little curious about this, so I did a little
>>>experiment. I sequestered away my normal Cygwin installation and
>>>started with a fresh install. Aside from the default "base" packages
>>>that setup.exe intstalls out of the gate, I found that I only had to
>>>actually select three packages in setup: gcc, make, and perl. (and
>>>Perl was required only for gendef it seems.)
>>Well, that's it then.
>>This is all WAY too complicated.
>>How can we possibly expect people to do in-depth debugging of problems
>>in the DLL if we require them to have gcc, make, and perl on their
>>systems? We can't expect people to be *perl hackers* if they want to
>>build cygwin. Just the perl requirement alone would mean that they'd
>>waste months learning perl.
>If it comes to that, we also require them to run Cygwin to build Cygwin
>on Windows. That's a pretty big hurdle, isn't it?
Yes! And this requirement that I have to send email to ask questions is
also huge. I lose years of my life every time I have an email problem.
And, then having to send long whining emails about how hard it all is
takes valuable time, too.
I guess we don't want people to use cygwin after all.