delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm |
List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com> |
List-Archive: | <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/> |
List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com> |
List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs> |
Sender: | cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com |
Delivered-To: | mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com |
content-class: | urn:content-classes:message |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
Subject: | RE: [RFA] A kinder, gentler check for /etc/{passwd,group} changes |
X-MimeOLE: | Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 |
Date: | Mon, 10 Sep 2001 13:43:20 +1000 |
Message-ID: | <EA18B9FA0FE4194AA2B4CDB91F73C0EF7A25@itdomain002.itdomain.net.au> |
X-MS-Has-Attach: | |
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: | |
Thread-Topic: | [RFA] A kinder, gentler check for /etc/{passwd,group} changes |
Thread-Index: | AcE5SsuYUMgLr2llStGUz0RSTB+3XgAT1jmw |
From: | "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au> |
To: | <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com> |
X-MIME-Autoconverted: | from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id XAA07857 |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com] > Anyway, I'm not arguing against finer grained /etc/passwd checking, as > you noted, and Corinna has already implemented it, so... I'd just like to say to you and Corinna - Woohoo! those timings look nice. > >> I think that Corinna mentioned that we have to have a > cygwin that works > >> without the daemon, actually: > > > >Oh. How up for discussion is that? Or does that mean "Current > >functionality shall remain without the deamon, new stuff can > be daemon > >dependent". > > I think I would have a hard time selling the concept of the necessity > to start a daemon if you want to run "make" on gcc. > > Cygwin has to be able to work like it does now without the daemon. I > think that is what Corinna was saying. In other words we don't move anything that works today into the daemon, without keeping a non-daemon option. Hmm, lets see how that goes :]. I suspect we'll end up with a frustatingly long list of "Gee it would be nice to x, but that currently works without the daemon". Rob
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |