On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 07:31:07PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: >> On 29/12/2009 16:27, Charles Wilson wrote: >>> Sounds like a good idea, but I wish I'd known this was coming before >>> wasting time on: >>> >>> * Improve checkX behavior when used as 'barrier' in startxwin. >> >> Sorry about that, Chuck, but this was just the latest of a long string >> of issues involving these scripts. We've been talking about replacing >> them for a while, and the recent traffic on the list was enough of an >> impetus to make me finally stop bandaging the scripts and find a better >> solution. Plus, we gain argument handling and .startxwinrc, something >> the scripts would likely never do. > >Like I said, it sounds to me like a good idea; there's just so many >issues that can go (and have gone) wrong in these scripts -- PLUS, whose >idea was it to have TWO, one .sh and one .bat?!!? Yeeesh. We're well >rid of them.
Yes, in fact, I think this deserves a gold star. These things have been a pain in the neck for years. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple