Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2002/09/20/17:05:39
Conrad Scott wrote:
> "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 09:22:49PM +0100, Conrad Scott wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I've been worried and confused about my proposed merge of the
>>>cygwin_daemon branch, because some of the files in the branch have a
>>>different name from those in HEAD: in particular, this applies to the
>>>System V IPC header files (ipc.h, msg.h, etc.).
>>>
>>>In the branch these are in include/sys with the correct names, while
>>
> in
>
>>>HEAD they are in the main cygwin source directory with mangled names
>>>(cygwin_ipc.h, etc.) -- this was done to avoid confusing
>>
> configuration
>
>>>scripts etc. that would otherwise have seen the headers.
>>>
>>>I've come to the conclusion that the best bet (i.e., what would make
>>
> my
>
>>>life easiest) is to have the files under the same names in both
>>
> branch
>
>>>and HEAD, but keep them out of the line-of-fire so that nothing finds
>>
> by
>
>>>mistake. The problem with the location used by HEAD is that they
>>
> don't
>
>>>end up in the installed directory areas and so make testing, even
>>>locally, rather difficult.
>>>
>>>My suggestion is to put these headers in include/cygwin with the
>>
> correct
>
>>>names.
>>
>>Is the interface working in this merge? If so, then it seems like
>
> putting
>
>>the files in sys is the way to go.
>
>
> Only the shm interface is available, and until all are working and
> cygserver can replace the cygipc package, I'm assuming that we can't
> expose any of them.
>
>
>>Otherwise putting them in include/cygwin is ok.
>
>
> Thanks: it sounds like this is the way to go. I'm not clear if/how I
> can produce a patch that moves files: is it possible?
>
> Or would it be okay for me to go ahead and make the change in HEAD
> myself? The change involves moving the relevant files and editing both
> them and a couple of the cygserver* files that include them.
Wouldn't it just be easier to use "-x foo.h -x foe.h -x
fum.h" type arguments with cvs diff to generate a patch
without these headers? Then you could adjust the includes
in the source file(s) in a seperate checkin.
Cheers,
Nicholas
- Raw text -