On Tuesday 26 February 2008 23:16, Hans Schmucker wrote:
> I have to admit that I'm a bit helpless dealing with the likes of
> you, ...
Well then, that feeling is mutual.
> ... but let's see:
> 1. Rolf wants to build something (doesn't matter what) with MinGW and
> emulated symlinks don't work, because MinGW is not a cygwin
I don't see how that is in any way relevant; AFAICT, at no time did Rolf
enquire about MinGW's capability to work with symlinks.
> 2. Brian points out to him that he isn't dealing with a Cygwin
On the contrary, Brian suggested a kludge to work around the problem
Rolf was facing. The kludge was based on the use of symlinks, which
would require the use of Cygwin, or perhaps, as Earnie pointed out, in
the particular circumstances of Rolf's issue, a similar kludge using
reparse points might be effective *without* requiring Cygwin.
> 3. I point out that he could use junctions...
...which basically was just a reiteration of the option Earnie had
already pointed out. (That's not a criticism; maybe you hadn't seen
Earnie's response, when you posted yours).
> (never mind how I called them, ...
You said they were *real* symlinks, which is technically inaccurate.
> I did post a link), ...
...which was useful, thanks; no one is disputing that.
> which offers a solution.
No; it offers a possible mechanism for implementing a kludge. A kludge
is *never* a solution, IMO. However, it may be expedient to adopt a
kludge, in order to work around some problem for which no immediate
solution is apparent; the distinction may be considered pedantic, so
let's not dwell on it.
> 4. You start your series of lectures...
My postings had nothing whatsoever to do with `lecturing'...
> ...without offering any information that would be helpful to Rolf ...
...neither was it intended to be helpful to Rolf, who had already stated
that he was not interested in any such form of kludged work around; it
was intended to correct the technically inaccurate statements that you
had made. This was in no way intended as any form of personal affront;
it was merely correction and clarification of information for the sake
of preserving the integrity of the list archives. These archives are a
valuable resource for future reference, which is why it is important
that such corrections of misleading information are posted, (and why it
*does* matter that the incorrect information you posted was not allowed
to pass into the archives without such accompanying correction).
> with the apparent aim to drive me off this list
Driving you, or anyone else, off the list could never have been further
from my mind; if I'd wanted to do that, I could simply have invoked my
administrative privilege, and excluded all posts from your address.
I'm sorry that you are so easily offended, when someone, (Brian and I,
on this occasion), points out and corrects technical inaccuracies in
some information you've posted on the list. There are many places on
the Internet, where you can find bad advice on using MinGW; we do not
want this list to be one of them. Had I myself posted technically
inaccurate information, I should have been grateful for someone to
correct my misconceptions; (indeed this has happened before, and I have
no doubt it may happen again, for none of us is infallible).