Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 19:59:45 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: cygipc packaging was Updated setup.ini with descriptions, categories, and dependencies Message-ID: <20010902195945.A16498@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com References: <3B8C2682 DOT DE851E18 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <000b01c133a3$0145ec10$7d6707d5 AT BRAMSCHE> <20010902114632 DOT C9517 AT redhat DOT com> <3B92BD8E DOT 40802 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3B92BD8E.40802@ece.gatech.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 07:15:26PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: >So, while I think that adding cygipc as an "official" package will >detract from other forward progress (the cygwin daemon, etc) and is a >marginally bad thing, my self-interest in giving up maintainership of a >package pushes me to be more positively inclined than I might otherwise be. That's certainly a reasonable position and I have to confess the part of the reason why I feel more positively inclined to include cygipc is because I feel that it has been well maintained over the years. I would have to be convinced that this will continue to be well maintained before I would want to include this by default. It is interesting that I just got back from a cookout and found that one of the messages in the cygwin mailing list was from someone who couldn't get cygipc working. Maybe that's a sign... cgf