Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/02/09/13:03:14
Glenn,
On Feb 7 13:36, Glenn Fowler wrote:
> Rather than waste time arguing about cygwin correctness, we added
> section 2 system call intercepts to our base library to get cygwin to
> act like unix. The library intercepts keep windows from contaminating
> our mainline source and scripts. For details see
>
> http://www.research.att.com/sw/download/win32/
>
> Since the last cygwin round AT&T ksh93, ast libraries, and UWIN source
> and binaries have been released uder the OSI approved CPL 1.0
> (Common Public License 1.0.) I packaged the 2005-02-02 standalone
> ksh for cygwin and posted setup.hint, tarballs and md5 sums at
>
> http://www.research.att.com/sw/download/beta/
>
> The packages under this URL are password protected. See
>
> http://www.research.att.com/sw/download/faq.license.html
>
> for the rationale and name and password to use (the same name and
> password for every user.)
>
> I believe previous ksh93 vs. cygwin issues mentioned on this list have
> been addressed in this release.
>
> I won't be the cygwin ksh93 maintainer, but I can supply cygwin
> packages at the above URL to the maintainer, including any changes
> required in the package files. All of our packages, including the
> cygwin ones, are generated by table driven scripts, so any cygwin
> specific package changes will be rolled back into those tables and
> scripts.
I don't understand your problem with being Cygwin maintainer for this
package if you patch and build it anyway. The maintenance effort
besides building and packing looks pretty small to me. Package
specific questions on the Cygwin ML are not going into the millions
or so. Well, except for coreutils, perhaps :-)
I had a look into the description on
http://www.research.att.com/sw/download/win32/ and I don't exactly
like what I see. If you think that you know bugs in Cygwin, why
don't you talk to us, instead of just creating a web page in which
you describe what's wrong in Cygwin from your point of view? There's
a cygwin-patches mailing list for ages. This web page helps nobody
and it's also sort of insulting since it implies that we would be
unreasonable when it comes to talking about changing Cygwin. Especially
since a lot of stuff is definitely not in the "right" or "wrong" category,
but in the "how to get it similar" category and when talking about "how to
get it similar", there's no such thing as ultimate correctness.
But of course it's your choice. I don't have to like it. I would
rather appreciate an open discussion on cygwin-patches (including
patches, maybe) or even on cygwin-developers, though.
For a start, I have one problem with your implementation. I don't think
it's appropriate for the shell to rename files on the fly, just because
the .exe suffix is missing, see your descriptions of chmod(2) and creat(2).
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.
--
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 -