On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:07:33AM -0800, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote: >>"Matt Seitz (matseitz)" >>>"Christopher Faylor" wrote: >>> >>>> In the meantime, if people are piling on to suggest this because they >>>> think it will cause someone to add xinit as a dependency to something >>>> please be assured that this will not happen. >>> >>> OK, what would cause someone to add xinit as a dependency to >>something? >> >>One reason I keep asking this question is that I don't understand the >>rationale against adding xinit. > > Yaakov posted the rationale. You responded to it. Additional messages > insisting how much you want this are really pretty pointless.
<quote> Here's my advice: it would be a better use of your time to install xinit and accustom yourself to the wonders of X rather than hopelessly trying to find a way to continue living in the past. </quote> <quote> Using X requires user intervention to start an X server first. No amount of automatic dependencies will change this, and therefore I don't expect that the number of questions would change one iota. </quote> But if TK needs an X server started in must be a installed and is a dependency of TK to have X server. Yes, one has to start it but why not require the dependency so that the X server software exists to use already? I agree with Matt, I'm not getting the angst for adding the X server as a dependency for TK which requires it. Having to start it is a different matter. -- Earnie -- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd -- 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
