Subject: Re: OT: possible project/research project -- ksh has it all and is now available for cygwin
From: Christopher Faylor <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:43:41 -0500

On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 04:15:27AM +0100, Karsten Fleischer wrote:
>> What happened to supplying this for the cygwin distribution?
>
>This is a release done by AT&T, I have nothing to do with it.

Ah.  I should have realized this.  Ok.

>I was waiting for their new source code to be released.
>I only noticed this discussion on the list and forwarded it to them.
>As you will have noticed, they compiled with Cygwin 1.3.7. I will do a
>compile on 1.3.10 on the weekend.

Thanks.  This is a much-requested port, so you can understand why I
keep bugging you. :-)

>> Also, what about all of the patches you wanted to contribute? 
>>  What happened with those?  
>
>You know, I'm quite busy in the other camp (Uwin), too.
>It's hard to port Python, TeTex, GhostScript, et cetera, et cetera, to
>Uwin when there's no one to assist you _and_ keep up with Cygwin at the
>same time.
>But it's all in my records, nothing's lost.
>I'm almost finished with those big packages for Uwin and I will have
>some time for Cygwin again.

Understandable.

>BTW,
>BIG THANKS to all the people out there who already worked on a Cygwin
>port of aforementioned packages. A grep -il cygwin on the sources almost
>always gave me a clue where to put my hands on for the Uwin port.

I guess this is one of the benefits of open source development.  Is Uwin
going to be open sourced sometime?  Or has that already happened?

>>I don't have any record that you've sent in an assignment.
>
>As most of my proposed patches have been classified as "not wanted",
>the rest of them reduces to a few number of lines that have to be
>changed.  And it was not clear if I would become Uwin "tainted" or not,
>so I refrained from assigning.

Ok.  It's been a while, so I don't exactly remember what you'd done.

One that I know about is the handling of some exec calls such that they
call /bin/sh.  I've been refraining from fixing this myself since I know
that you'd already done this.

If you have some small < 15 line patches, we might be able to get them
in without assignments.

>> If I should give up on asking these questions, just let me know.
>
>I fully understand your concerns.
>I'm sorry for the delays, but you'll hear from me again soon.

That's all I wanted to know.  Thanks.

>I'm especially interested in looking into the recent mmap() patches
>Corinna has done and comparing them to mine. mmap() is really hard
>stuff. Dave Korn told me that this was one of the most complicated
>things to implement for Uwin.

mmap has been one of the most challenging parts of cygwin.  The hardest
part was getting some reasonable functionality on Windows 9x.  Corinna
has done an amazing job twiddling and fiddling the Windows API to get
things working.

Best Regards,
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/