Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2002/06/09/23:00:24
Robert Collins wrote:
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
>>[mailto:cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com] On Behalf Of
>>Christopher Faylor
>>Sent: Monday, 10 June 2002 12:28 PM
>>
>
>>>However, that doesn't stop you from compiling them, linking
>>>
>>them against
>>
>>>cygserver, and using them to help test and develop cygserver...
>>>
>>In reality, there is no reason why we couldn't include cygipc
>>in the cygwin
>>release. I was just concerned that the inclusion of cygipc
>>would hinder the
>>development of a true cygwin DLL solution that used some of
>>the principles
>>embodied in Robert/Egor's cygserver.
Right right right. I was just raising the issue because it sounded to
me like the proposition was to include ipcrm/ipcs/etc IN winsup. THAT's
what I was warning against. If we just want the tools -- say, as a
separate package -- then that's cool. In fact, once cygserver's IPC
component becomes a viable replacement for cygipc, I'll start including
the ipc-tool executables (semtool, shmtool, etc) in the cygutils binary
package.
> Yes, and we all agreed with that! I don't recall GPL issues ever being
> raised against the inclusion of the cygipc _package_.
>
> Furthermore, with the federated setup.ini capability, there's no reason
> that someone 'out there' can't make cygipc available as a package if
> they want to. I still don't think that cygipc belongs in the main distro
> however.
True -- but it won't be me, because of the same "hinderances" that we
feared originally.
--Chuck
- Raw text -