Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
From: "Fish" <fish AT infidels DOT org>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: new to-do item
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:48:49 -0700
Message-ID: <000a01c10e7b$c535fae0$0200a8c0@proteva>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <20010717001738.A6885@redhat.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300

> What I am saying is that if you add a to-do list entry
> which has nothing to do with the Cygwin DLL, it will
> be rejected.

10-4.

<snip>

> I'm wondering how you are going to release this product
> given cygwin's requirement that you must open source
> your product when it is released. Are you going to be
> producing an open source product?

Well, not quiiite......  >;->

<wiggles eyebrows mischievously as Chris begins having heart palpitations>

(ahem)  We've *already* produced an open source product.  >;-)

> If so, I applaud your efforts.

Thanks.

But I can't take credit for it.

I'm only one of many developers, and only became a part of the team just
recently (about a year ago?)

> If not, hmm... you've got problems, I think.

Relax. It's open source. :)

<snip>

> I'm saying no such thing.  I am only correcting
> your erroneous use of the Cygwin to-do list.  Why
> do you think I redirected your email to the cygwin
> mailing list if it wasn't possible to do what you
> wanted?  It would be off-topic here if that was the
> case.

Understood!  (*Now* anyway.)  Sorry for the confusion.

> As I said, this is a missing header file or import library
> issue.  The header files and libraries come with the
> cygwin distribution but they are not related to the Cygwin
> DLL.

I think I now see the source of my original confusion. Cygwin DLL code must
obviously make certain Win32 API calls (in order to emulate the *ix environment)
and purely as a side effect of that, it allows one to write code that makes the
same API calls.

But the ability to have one's code be able to make Win32 API calls isn't
supported per se. It's simply one of the side effects. Is that correct?

Thus, as you have now sufficiently explained, my original request to include the
ability to make a given Win32 API call was inappropriate for the Cygwin DLL TODO
list. I understand that now.

Sorry, Chris. I'll stop bothering you now.

--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
   fish AT infidels DOT org


--
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/