On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 08:45:10AM -0800, Jim Kleckner wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 08:08:16AM -0800, Jim Kleckner wrote: >> >>>Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> >>>>OTOH, perhaps I'm oversimplifying things, but it seems like this thread >>>>went on for quite a while after the simple "delete the nonstandard DLL" >>>>advice was given. I don't see how any advice is going to be useful if >>>>it isn't followed. >>> >>>I agree completely. All the more reason to pull the concise answers >>>out of the email list and into the FAQ. This thread wouldn't have >>>existed at all. >> >> >>The concise answer is already in *cygwin itself*. The FAQ could >>arguably be updated to say "delete the dll that is not in >>c:\cygwin\bin". I guess it is assuming that someone has actually >>taken the time to read the error that cygwin presents. >> >>However, again, this concise answer was mentioned in the email list and >>not followed. I don't know why anyone would view the FAQ as more >>authoritative than the people they are soliciting for help here. > >Not true at all. The suggestion was followed. > >Note that the FAQ does not state to put the cygwin bin on the system >path. Of course I knew that it would work to do that. As a Unix guy >since 1978, I was curious to try using ln to see what it would do. >Larry Hall helpfully pointed out that while it would work, it was a >brittle solution.
So, if you're a Unix guy since 1978, that puts you in a unique category. You don't qualify as a FAQ. I have very strong reservations about filling up documentation with every conceivable combination of advice that we could possibly think of. Adding rationales to stop Unix guys from shooting themselves in the foot should not be a focus of the FAQ. The FAQ is there to give advice to people on what to do, not to provide rationales for why they shouldn't do other things that pop into their heads. >Look, all I'm trying to do here is save time for other people, not >waste all of our time. The notion that the email list should be >the primary reference for this kind of issue is wrong. And it shouldn't >be this hard to try to help out either. The solution that the DLL has to be in the system path is not required for a sanctioned Cygwin release. But, then, we've seen before that clamwin insists on running in a non-cygwin environment. I don't want to be in the business of adding advice to the FAQ for fixing up other people's problems. If this is a problem with clamwin then people should be lobbying them for a fix, not suggesting that the Cygwin FAQ has to be modified as a workaround. 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/
