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
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 17:44:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Prentis Brooks <prentis AT aol DOT net>
To: Mumit Khan <khan AT NanoTech DOT Wisc DOT EDU>
cc: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: TCP Wrappers Port
In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.96.1010727154852.26447C-100000@hp2.xraylith.wisc.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0107271734090.7097-100000@magetower.office.aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Please don't take my words the wrong way.  I am only considering this based
on win32 operability.  sys_nerr and sys_errlist work in your patch now, but it
is possible that it may change later, while the strerror() is part of the
win32 platform.  Also, sys_nerr and sys_errlist do not contain any of the
win32 error codes.  But, I am not saying we have to make this change, and I am
not looking to do this without some idea as to how the Cygwin community wants
to manage this.  If we stick with sys_nerr and sys_errlist (Unix basis) then
the community is committing to keeping that functionality in the Cygwin
environment, we keep this patch and move forward.  Personally, I like the
simplicity of your patch.  However, if the community does not want to make that
commitment and chooses instead to work more in line with the win32 based
API, then we need to use the str_error() route.  Both work, two answers to the
same problem, and both have their good points and bad.  It is just a matter
of which way the community chooses to support.  I can work this either way,
in fact, your patch is easier to maintain on the tcp_wrapper end.

I am waiting for some feedback from the other maintainers on this list,
specifically those responsible for the heart of cygwin and I intend to follow
their lead.  Once I have some response to this, I plan to contact the
author and explain the patches as well.  If they choose to maintain the
sys_nerr and sys_errlist, as someone mentioned earlier, then we just move
forward.  I hope, I am wording this properly as I do not mean to hurt any
feelings or suggest that your patch was not sufficient.  I just happened to
find another way before I found yours.


On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Mumit Khan wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Prentis Brooks wrote:
>
> > Based on what I have read so  far, I think it may be best to stick with the
> > strerror() since that appears to be the way some of the other developers are
> > going (based primarily on MKS's website)
> >
> > http://www.mkssoftware.com/docs/man5/sys_errlist.5.asp
>
> I really don't see why you would want to change anything at all! My
> trivial patch does the job just fine, and it's been accepted by the
> author, which means that the next release should not need any changes
> for Cygwin.
>
> Principle of minimum changes to existing packages is a good one.
>
> Regards,
> Mumit
>
>

Prentis Brooks	| prentis AT aol DOT net | 703-265-0914 | AIM: PrentisB
System Administrator - Web Infrastructure & Security

       A knight is sworn to valor.  His heart knows only virtue.  His blade
       defends the helpless.  His word speaks only truth.  His wrath undoes the
       wicked. - the old code of Bowen, last of the dragonslayers


--
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/