Nicholas Wourms wrote: > Harold, > > Thanks for the sarcasm, but it was hardly warranted. I was simply > restating the facts for those who were not involved. Also, it seems > that you missed one of the points of that discussion, which was that > all things of XFree nature should be discussed on the XFree list, > regardless of whether it was released as a dual mode application or > as an X-only application. > > >>You seem to have confused the *directory* release/XFree86 with the >>*category* XFree86. Go back and read my original response and you >>will see that I was trying to figure out if this package is more of >>a Cygwin responsibility, rather than a Cygwin/XFree86 >>responsibility. > > > I was adressing your concerns over which mailing list this should be > on, who cares where it is actually located in the release directory. > > And, according to the mailing lists webpage: > > "cygwin: a high volume ... There are two exceptions ... questions > about the Cygwin/XFree86 project (or any X-related questions for > cygwin) should go to the cygwin-xfree mailing list (see below)..." > > "cygwin-xfree: a list for discussion of all things related to XFree86 > on Cygwin (Cygwin/XFree86). If you have questions about how to use, > configure, install, build, or develop with Cygwin/XFree86, this is > the list for you...." > > If I were new and read this page, I think it would be safe to assume > that this list *is* the appropriate one for discussing this matter. > Considiering hew wanted to offer an extension to the ghostscript-x11 > package. Ghostscript is *not* in the XFree86 directory because it is > a dual-mode application. > > >>Of course, you are still right in pointing out that the >>ghostscript-x11 package should be in the XFree86 category. >> >>However, I was asking where the files were stored, not which >>category they will be in. If the files are stored in release/, >>then they are of no concern to me. If the files are stored in >>release/XFree86/, then they are my responsibility. > > > Ghostscript-x11 is in the same directory as the rest of the > ghostscript distribution, which is under /release. Your requirement > that all packages that are XFree-related go under /release/XFree86 > doesn't make sense. Why should ghostscript be split up and have some > parts in /release/ghostscript and others in > /release/XFree86/ghostscript? This makes things more complicated > then they have to be. Anyhow, your argument that package discussion > on this list be limited to packages under /release/XFree86 is > contrary to what Chris and others have stated on the other lists and > the mailing-list webpage. They claim that any Cygwin/XFree-related > discussion should be on this list. His post was regarding > cygwin-ghostscript-x11 and cygwin-GSView (x11), which seems to be > awefully Cygwin/Xfree-related to me. >
I didn't make a requirement that all XFree86-related packages go in release/XFree86. I said that if something isn't in release/XFree86/, then I have no authority to do anything with it (upload files, delete files, make releases, etc.). I can only touch stuff in release/XFree86/. Splitting the X part out of general packages and sticking the two halves in release/ and release/XFree86/ is a stupid idea, and I certainly never suggested that. I wasn't making an argument that the package be discussed on cygwin or cygwin-apps rather than cygwin-xfree. What I said was that if the package is stored in release/, rather than release/XFree86/, and if the X part of the package is very small, then discussing the posting the release announcement only to cygwin-xfree is silly. Maybe 5% of users will use the X component, so why is there not an announcement elsewhere? Hey, here is another clue that this isn't just XFree86-related: look at the subject line! This isn't a ghostscript-x11 package, this is a new version of ghostscript. ghostscript has been discussed on other mailing lists for ages and it would be ridiculous to start posting all ghostscript development discussion to cygwin-xfree. Perhaps you have some inside knowledge that this announcement was actually supposed to be titled ``ghostscript-x11-7.05-1'', but I am not a mind reader so to me this message looks like a general release for the whole ghostscript system. > >>The next reply I need is from Jack Larsen. > > > Well you're getting my 2 cents on this anyhow :-). Besides, I > answered your query as to where ghostscript-x11 was located. > > Cheers, > Nicholas > Grrr, Harold
