Subject: Re: ksh on cygwin
From: Christopher Faylor <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 22:39:12 -0500

On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 12:54:17AM +0100, Karsten Fleischer wrote:
>>I would *really* like to get something official from AT&T if you were
>>actually working for them, too.
>
>OK, I triggered this.  I'll be quiet now.

I'm just asking for assurances.

Can you get someone from AT&T to send email here saying that they have
no interest in your changes?  That + your assignment will be enough for
me.

>P.S.: I gave you some clues about real bugs in Cygwin. Maybe someone else
>could have a look at those.

Your original email mentions these bugs:

>- pathconf() doesn't check existance of the path

I think Corinna fixed this.

>- getpagesize() should return a value compatible with mmap(), that is
>dwAllocGranularity (65536) instead of dwPageSize (1024).

Corinna explained the rationale here.

>- exec*() functions would always invoke a /bin/sh on a file that isn't
>a valid executable.  Only execlp()/execvp() should do so, others must
>return with an ENOEXEC.

Valid bug.

>- the exec*() fix revealed a bug with vfork() in ash

Don't know what this is.

>- some mmap() problems have been fixed.

Don't know what these are.

>- utime() doesn't mark st_ctime for update

I assume that this is a valid bug.

If we can work out the above licensing issues then patches for these
would be great.  Otherwise more details for the "Don't know" problems
would allow us to fix the problems.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/