On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:20:16AM -0800, Jim Kleckner wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 09:57:44AM -0800, Jim Kleckner wrote: > >>>Then strike the link text and limit it to the workaround of adding >>>the bin to the system path. My text was a suggested starting point. >> >>i.e., a workaround. >> >>>>The solution that the DLL has to be in the system path is not required >>>>for a sanctioned Cygwin release. But, then, we've seen before that >>>>clamwin insists on running in a non-cygwin environment. I don't want >>>>to be in the business of adding advice to the FAQ for fixing up other >>>>people's problems. >>> >>>Nobody said the workaround was required. >> >> >>See above. > >Above does not say the workaround is required nor did the original >text.
Ah, semantic fun. Ok. I do not want to have an entry in the FAQ which "suggests" a workaround of setting the system PATH environment variable to work around other people's problems. >You complain about 3PPs but don't want to provide any easily found >directions to them about what not to do. You can say "search the list" >but as a practical matter, it isn't effective at guiding their >behavior. Corinna already said that she thought that instructions are a good idea. I am not against providing instructions to 3PPs. As I said today: >The problem with a "third party packager's guide" is that it would have >to be written by a third party who understands the whole deal. I'm not >aware of anyone actually trying to do this right. On rereading this thread, I see that you've volunteered to come up to speed on this subject so, maybe I was wrong. Patches tacitly awaited. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
