On 2/26/2019 6:43 PM, Steven Penny wrote:
i would like to make that last point vividly clear: its on you to do that
testing. ive already given a clear refutation of your original point, so
the
ball is now squarely in your court.
Not really. I don't work for free, especially for hostile people with
over inflated egos and crippling social disorders.
The onus is on whoever is interested in having cygwin work in this
particular configuration. Clearly not you. Since it works with 2.11, I'm
not particularly interested in expending a lot of work figuring out what
got botched in 3.0 or who did it. Wasn't me, so not my problem.
It was my mistake to assume that the cygwin community was interested in
interoperability. I should have done more research before making that
unwarranted assumption.
--
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
