On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 09:13:32PM -0600, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>I think I'd rather wait until some kind of early warning system is >>available in setup.exe than issue a "deprecated" warning which has the >>capacity to propagate everywhere and live for a long time. > >Why isn't cygwin-announce sufficient? We rely on that for everything >else. I'm just afraid that if the setup.exe patch , if not imminent, >could hold up the gcc development.
If you have been reading this list for any length of time then it should be obvious that merely mentioning something in cygwin-announce is not an adequate way to let people know about serious changes. 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/
