This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Package file lists archive
- From: Steven Penny <svnpenn at gmail dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 01:53:14 -0500
- Subject: Re: Package file lists archive
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAAXzdLUx+zsvXGDfYyBkounDNLsMy8oW1ZmGZtLoOA-XfeDQHg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140526201210 dot GB3903 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <CAAXzdLUZ-0iR4NR2j30UPJpmr4LfPtqBXfPtc7vh-nY3ZfF9Ag at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140527221151 dot GA6521 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <5395D00C dot 1080704 at etr-usa dot com> <CAAXzdLWmmQEvwpGFcraT=7+hwfYWRzGbj4YxegAoWScZ46-jfA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140617142906 dot GE7138 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <CAAXzdLVFNcyFRbWoWGTAaDj8C=LqvMnZQbNgDfTYCeoM=3sUfw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140618061812 dot GE4920 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx>
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
> 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?
--
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