* Thomas Dickey (Sun, 6 May 2007 10:49:23 -0400 (EDT)) > On Sun, 6 May 2007, Charles Wilson wrote: > > Thomas Dickey wrote: > >> On Sat, 5 May 2007, Charles Wilson wrote: > >> > >>> The fact is, rxvt upstream is dead, dead, dead. It has shuffled off this > >>> mortal coil. Joined the choir invisible. It is an EX-terminal. The > >>> terminal is terminal. > >> > >> thanks for agreeing with me. It has no maintainer. > > > > Not so fast, Thomas. I did not and do not agree with your previous posts: > > neither of your messages claimed that "upstream rxvt has no maintainer". > > (If > > they did, then I would have agreed with that.) Your messages claimed that > > rxvt had no cygwin maintainer. That claim is false: I am the cygwin > > maintainer for rxvt. > > I don't much care for the role of "cygwin maintainer" in a discussion > related to _support_ [...]
You are confusing things. Quoting you: '"support" is relative. There's apparently no X maintainer [...]'. If you don't 'care for the role of "cygwin maintainer"' then that's obviously nonsense as X is maintained upstream. Thorsten -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/ FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/