Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/05/10/22:48:35
Robert Collins wrote:
>>I take it you're in favor of adding cygipc to the distro (or are you
>>speaking academically)?
>
>
> Frankly, I don't care whether it's in or not. The issues with cygipc
> getting integrated to the 'kernel', and with it fulfilling some corner
> cases wihtout such integration are moot while no-one has the time to
> progress cygdaemon's SysVIPC code.
No, cygipc will never be integrated into the cygwin kernel. It can't
be, given the licensing issues -- it will always remain an addon
package, whether 'in distribution' or outside (as it is now).
The issue is whether to make the cygipc package a full-fledged part of
the cygwin world, distributed via the mirror system -- like zlib,
libxml, postgresql, etc -- instead of from some schmuck's personal
website (e.g. mine).
> And heck, so far cygdaemon does the tty security thing that was it's
> original requirement, as well as all the shm functions, all the key
> functions, and some of the sem functions. All with security set
> correctly on NT, and via mode_t values on 9x. Fork safe. Dirty process
> aborts were mostly handled (which I don't think cygipc handles at
> *all*).
Rule of thumb: cygipc sucks. That's (one of the reasons) why I resisted
adding it to the distribution.
> Conceptually it was multi-user ready (i.e. run with 'switch
> users' or Terminal Services safely).
>
> From memory cygdaemon had to be 80% complete when I handed over
> maintainership. I simply didn't have time to complete it.
I understand.
> I've no idea whats happened since, as I haven't been tracking commits to
> it - the exact same lack of time that prompted me to step down as
> maintainer.
Conrad Scott provided some patches, but he disappeared abrubtly last
September. Nobody has been able to contact him at all since then, AFAIK
-- and I've tried. Since his disappearance, IIRC nobody has patched
anything in the cygdaemon code.
> Again, IIRC, it was slower than cygipc at the time - but *no*
> performance tuning had been attempted, so I don't find that surprising.
Sure it was slower -- cygipc is fast and dirty, and does a lot of things
wrong. But quickly.
> Given the above, it should be clear that IF I had the time do some
> something about it, I'd finish off cygdaemon, and THEN I'd have the
> right to an opinion about cygipc coming into the distribution.
Disagree. You have as much right to offer an opinion as anyone else,
regardless of whether you did/will/won't/intend to fix cygdaemon.
--Chuck
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -