Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/07/27/21:33:26
Ok, then my questions are answered :)
On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 05:44:12PM -0400, Prentis Brooks wrote:
> > Please don't take my words the wrong way. I am only considering this based
> > on win32 operability. sys_nerr and sys_errlist work in your patch now, but it
> > is possible that it may change later, while the strerror() is part of the
> > win32 platform. Also, sys_nerr and sys_errlist do not contain any of the
> > win32 error codes. But, I am not saying we have to make this change, and I am
> > not looking to do this without some idea as to how the Cygwin community wants
> > to manage this. If we stick with sys_nerr and sys_errlist (Unix basis) then
> > the community is committing to keeping that functionality in the Cygwin
> > environment, we keep this patch and move forward. Personally, I like the
> > simplicity of your patch. However, if the community does not want to make that
> > commitment and chooses instead to work more in line with the win32 based
> > API, then we need to use the str_error() route. Both work, two answers to the
> > same problem, and both have their good points and bad. It is just a matter
> > of which way the community chooses to support. I can work this either way,
> > in fact, your patch is easier to maintain on the tcp_wrapper end.
> >
> > I am waiting for some feedback from the other maintainers on this list,
> > specifically those responsible for the heart of cygwin and I intend to follow
> > their lead. Once I have some response to this, I plan to contact the
> > author and explain the patches as well. If they choose to maintain the
> > sys_nerr and sys_errlist, as someone mentioned earlier, then we just move
> > forward. I hope, I am wording this properly as I do not mean to hurt any
> > feelings or suggest that your patch was not sufficient. I just happened to
> > find another way before I found yours.
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Mumit Khan wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I really don't see why you would want to change anything at all! My
> > > trivial patch does the job just fine, and it's been accepted by the
> > > author, which means that the next release should not need any changes
> > > for Cygwin.
> > >
> > > Principle of minimum changes to existing packages is a good one.
>
> Just my 2 ct:
>
> - The principle of minimum changes is actually a good thing. The
> less intrusive Cygwin specific changes to existing packages are,
> the more attendance you'll get from the package maintainers to
> include the Cygwin patches into the main source tree. Which in turn
> lowers your need to patch packages again and again when new versions
> are released.
>
> - Since the author has already included Mumit's Cygwin related patch
> it's better to follow that way.
>
> - If you think to have a better solution feel free to work closer to
> the author on the next package release. It's usually better to
> have a new generic solution instead of a target specific patch.
>
> Tell me when I shall stop bloviating.
>
> Btw., the next Cygwin version will export sys_nerr and sys_errlist,
> AFAICS. So the patch should be a temporary solution, anyway.
>
> Corinna
>
>
Prentis Brooks | prentis AT aol DOT net | 703-265-0914 | AIM: PrentisB
System Administrator - Web Infrastructure & Security
A knight is sworn to valor. His heart knows only virtue. His blade
defends the helpless. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the
wicked. - the old code of Bowen, last of the dragonslayers
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -