On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 01:53:14AM -0500, Steven Penny wrote: >On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> Your idea of "constructive" is apparently flawed. > >This is an interesting comment, taking in that your response ignores the >original question and focuses on off topic quibbling. I will pose your >viewpoint >and my question again
I was actually staying on-topic with what I wanted to address: namely the thin ice that you are walking with your posting style. >>And, frankly, I think it's a bad idea to keep a monolithic list of >>packages available for people to download anyway. > >Do you have an explanation for this opinion, or citations as to why >this is a bad idea, taking into account that major Linux distros are >already using this very method? Frankly, I don't have to justify my opinion. I understand how the package generation would have to work and don't see a major benefit to introducing a package list file given the amount of work and the fact that I would have to do the work. I also don't want to spend my time debating with you about why it is or isn't a good idea. 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