Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/01/15/00:37:47
[snip]
> >>I just wanted to make it clear that we aren't going to be
> making any
> >>special concessions to a product like a virus scanner which cause
> >>perfectly acceptable code to misbehave. If that is the
> case then it
> >>is a situation for the virus scanner to work out. It's not a
> >>requirement that Cygwin work around things like this.
> >
> >Well, that is a pretty strong statement, I'd expect from a
> for-profit
> >company run by corporate management.
>
> This is a practical decision.
>
> We are not going to visit the slippery slope of adding code
> to Cygwin to work around other third party software. We
Huh? Has it even been 24 hours since you suggested Cygwin be changed in a
non-standardized manner merely to band-aid a broken third-party IRC client?
And doesn't Cygwin still create sparse files for the benefit of one single
third-party application? The slope you mention has already been visited on
more than one occaision.
[snip]
> However, this is a free software project so people have the
> ability to inspect the source code and offer patches. If
> someone offers a patch to fix problems with a virus scanner
> which doesn't involve any special tests for the virus
> scanner, doesn't involve extra code to work around the virus
> scanner, and doesn't involve doing something like, say, using
> sockets instead of pipes because the virus scanner doesn't
> like pipes, then, sure, we'll consider the code. Otherwise,
> this is what I would call a "special concession to third
> party software" and I'm not interested in littering the code
> with those.
>
Again, that last sentence is simply not a true statement, unless you want to
split hairs about the "littering" part. And I have to question the veracity
of a "PTC" statement that has as its prerequisites that the patch involve no
actual code.
> Perhaps Corinna has a different opinion and will convince me
> otherwise but, until that time, I just thought I would make
> the ground rules clear. I thought this was obvious stuff but
> I guess it wasn't.
>
No, and I guess it still isn't.
BTW, OP: Update your 1.3.x install. It's the 21st century for God's sake.
--
Gary R. Van Sickle
--
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 -