Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:05:08 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: pedantic/misled/confused/passive-aggressive (was Re: MinTTY 0.3.3)
Message-ID: <20090111040508.GA8342@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Note-from-DJ: This may be spam

I apologize for sidetracking the MinTTY thread.  It was bugging me too
much to see the same argument repeated a couple of days after they were
already discussed.

(I blame the choklat stout: http://www.southerntierbrewing.com/beers.html)

As I've said, I think MinTTY is a nice program, getting better all of
the time.  It likely can't replace the current default cygwin shell and
that's a pity.  We could use something that was actively maintained with
more of a linux look and feel.

Just to contribute something useful: Chuck Wilson, if you are reading
this, am I correct in assuming that you don't enjoy maintaining the
Windows version of rxvt?  If so, should we consider deprecating rxvt in
favor of MinTTY when MinTTY becomes a real package?

If not, there is no harm in keeping two packages in the distribution.  I
was just trying to lighten your load if you were interested.

The other thing that I've always wanted was some way for the user to
choose what they want to run without running cygwin.bat by hand.  I
think that would mean setup.exe modification though.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/