DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 q=dns; s=default; b=kpCefwy50dS6WTwiIgPNn2LMER5050MlxjS+Z7eZXg6
	kHJFNCbtoF7sqyzjOn2HKOKTaRBr+VuP49egmSSmBmG36gmxoyWfaV3i8I6VlsJi
	d3sE4S1wBeUwno11l9+4iPj+ehsnRnufbsHHtZOttLLfRkWiE+nETOkq2cvfAQjY
	=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Message-ID: <51AF927E.80908@etr-usa.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 13:33:18 -0600
From: Warren Young <warren@etr-usa.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Mandatory file locking semantics
References: <51A7F547.6020509@etr-usa.com> <20130531092228.GB30659@calimero.vinschen.de> <51A900EF.2020606@etr-usa.com> <20130601105741.GC30659@calimero.vinschen.de> <20130602103125.GE13934@calimero.vinschen.de> <51ACD415.2090709@etr-usa.com> <20130604084815.GD19572@calimero.vinschen.de> <51AF6433.5050104@etr-usa.com> <20130605170246.GD3250@calimero.vinschen.de> <51AF7303.8060303@etr-usa.com> <20130605181516.GE3250@calimero.vinschen.de>
In-Reply-To: <20130605181516.GE3250@calimero.vinschen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 6/5/2013 12:15, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> Actually, adding this stuff to Cygwin took almost four days of my
> life as it is today.

Understood.  Likewise, because I am not full-time on Cygwin SQLite, it's 
taken similar amounts of time from me, which is why I'm ignoring your 
xidepend complaints right now. :)

> So far it's not even clear if you really can use it in sqlite.

That's definitely a possibility.  I'll be posting my thoughts on that in 
another part of the thread.

I hope that even if this doesn't end up helping SQLite, though, that the 
code is still useful enough to stay in the DLL.  I can't be the only one 
who has ever had such interop problems.

> Given all that, I'd appreciate if you'd first test if the whole effort
> was even worth it.

Okay.  -2 packages are built now.  Announcement elsewhere.

> Does that make sense, at least a bit?

Thank you for taking the time to explain.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple