* Thomas Dickey (Sun, 6 May 2007 13:36:31 -0400 (EDT))
> On Sun, 6 May 2007, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
> > You are confusing things. Quoting you: '"support" is relative. There's
> > apparently no X maintainer [...]'. If you don't 'care for the role of
> > "cygwin maintainer"' then that's obviously nonsense as X is maintained
> > upstream.
> not at all: X upstream doesn't maintain the Cygwin X server.
> (nothing's preventing them from doing that, but it's not the same as 
> actually doing it).
> Again, if there were an upstream _maintainer_ for rxvt (the point of this 
> thread), they'd have done something useful with the win32 bits mentioned. 

Why would the upstream rxvt maintainer support ("do something useful") 
with the Cygwin rxvt port when the X upstream maitainer doesn't?!

Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://x.cygwin.com/docs/
FAQ:                   http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/

Reply via email to