Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/04/08/05:14:54
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:00:58AM +0800, Wu Yongwei wrote:
>>Thank you for all the responses, even the one telling me not to SHOUT. A
>>message is better than nothing, and I shouted because it seemed no one
>>noticed my message.
>>
>>But I am not here to argue. I ask. Should I simply supply the ip.h, tcp.h,
>>and udp.h here? I did not because I am not sure about the licence issue.
>>And I asked first.
>
>You DO NOT "simply supply" anything. I suggested that you supply a
>patch, as I have done repeatedly in the past. I gave you the URL that
>explains what you need to do.
Yes, I will if I do anything at all. I have already mentioned that the
current ip.h and tcp.h are empty. But they are there to overwrite mine.
>
>If you are going to be copying directly from some other file, then of
>course there are licensing issues.
I asked whether there are any policies on adopting other header files (open
source), but no one answered. By the way, Linux includes the BSD header too.
>
>You should just adapt whatever you need from the Single UNIX
>Specification.
Sorry but SUSv2 says nothing about the struct definitions. Or at least I
cannot get any meaningful search results.
>
>I'll leave it to the collective wisdom of this mailing list to help you
>on your painful road of enlightenment with regard to submitting a patch.
>Your last effort was a good first try but you still have a ways to go.
I know what a patch is. But I would like to ask, plan, and do. It is really
painful to learn to first do and then ask.
>
>cgf
Wu Yongwei
--
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 -