* 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/