Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id:	<5.2.0.9.2.20030120103012.02ace590@pop3.cris.com>
X-Sender:	rrschulz AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com
Date:	Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:42:58 -0800
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Randall R Schulz <rrschulz AT cris DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Announce: ioperm-0.2.1 for cygwin released
Cc:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<20030120175247.GD28535@tortuga.etc.sk>
References:	<20030120150543 DOT GC27717 AT redhat DOT com>
	<20030120145735 DOT GC28535 AT tortuga DOT etc DOT sk>
	<20030120150543 DOT GC27717 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0

Marcel et. al.,

At 09:52 2003-01-20, Marcel Telka wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 10:05:43AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 03:57:35PM +0100, Marcel Telka wrote:
> > >This software adds support for ioperm() function to Cygwin. This support
> > >includes sys/io.h and sys/perm.h header files (not included in Cygwin by
> > >default) together with development and runtime libraries.
> > >
> > >News in this release:
> > > * Windows DDK is optional for compilation now
> > > * --prefix=/usr parameter for ./configure script is not mandatory now
> > >
> > >Homepage: http://openwince.sourceforge.net/ioperm/
> >
> > Is there some reason you're not proposing this as a standard cygwin 
> package?
>
>There are at least two reasons:
>1. A device driver (ioperm.sys) is required for running ioperm with NT/2000/XP
>2. Windows DDK is required for the driver compilation.
>
>If these drawbacks are acceptable for a standard cygwin package I could start
>ioperm integration with mainstream cygwin net distribution.
>
>Any votes? :-)


Regarding (1): Are we ("We" Kemo Sabe?) not crossing a boundary here?

Up to now we've been able to say that Cygwin does not install drivers or 
other kernel-mode software and, the recent "/etc" business notwithstanding, 
have been able to claim that BSODs, hangs and other nastiness cannot be 
blamed on Cygwin.

Will this added capability be optional so those who don't need it and who 
would prefer to avoid the potential instability of added driver software 
(and I emphasize _potential_, not wanting to impugn anyone's programming 
abilities) can avoid it altogether?

Am I being overly cautious? Paranoid?

Stability means a lot to me. My Windows 2K Pro system has been extremely 
reliable since I got my MSI motherboard, and I like it that way!


>CC'ed to cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
>
>Have a nice day
>
>--
>+-------------------------------------------+
>| Marcel Telka   e-mail:   marcel AT telka DOT sk  |
>|                homepage: http://telka.sk/ |
>|                jabber:   marcel AT jabber DOT sk |
>+-------------------------------------------+


Randall Schulz 


--
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 -