Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/03/21/22:23:58
> What happened to supplying this for the cygwin distribution?
This is a release done by AT&T, I have nothing to do with it.
I was waiting for their new source code to be released.
I only noticed this discussion on the list and forwarded it to them.
As you will have noticed, they compiled with Cygwin 1.3.7. I will do a
compile on 1.3.10 on the weekend.
> Also, what about all of the patches you wanted to contribute?
> What happened with those?
You know, I'm quite busy in the other camp (Uwin), too.
It's hard to port Python, TeTex, GhostScript, et cetera, et cetera, to
Uwin when there's no one to assist you _and_ keep up with Cygwin at the
same time.
But it's all in my records, nothing's lost.
I'm almost finished with those big packages for Uwin and I will have
some time for Cygwin again.
BTW,
BIG THANKS to all the people out there who already worked on a Cygwin
port of aforementioned packages. A grep -il cygwin on the sources almost
always gave me a clue where to put my hands on for the Uwin port.
> I don't have any record that
> you've sent in an assignment.
As most of my proposed patches have been classified as "not wanted", the
rest of them reduces to a few number of lines that have to be changed.
And it was not clear if I would become Uwin "tainted" or not, so I
refrained from assigning.
> If I should give up on asking these questions, just let me know.
I fully understand your concerns.
I'm sorry for the delays, but you'll hear from me again soon.
I'm especially interested in looking into the recent mmap() patches
Corinna has done and comparing them to mine. mmap() is really hard
stuff. Dave Korn told me that this was one of the most complicated
things to implement for Uwin.
Karsten
--
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 -