Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id: <200201111451.g0BEpHG30921@dymwsm09.mailwatch.com>
From: "Fleischer, Karsten (K.)" <kfleisc1 AT getrag-ford DOT com>
To: "'Corinna Vinschen'" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: ksh on cygwin
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:50:50 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.15)
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"
HOP-COUNT: 1
X-MAILWATCH-INSTANCEID: 01020004a21b5a63-2c69-4113-9f48-a4761c43c619
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jan 2002 14:51:18.0501 (UTC) FILETIME=[6D31A950:01C19AAF]

> If we just left out that patch we won't have a problem.

OK.

> > Two other patches mimic UWIN behavior. That can not be a 
> problem, since Cygwin also has adopted the UWIN symbolics links.
> 
> Mimicing isn't a problem as long as you didn't look into the
> sources and get the idea from there.  If you just looked how
> it works from examining the behaviour of the binaries, that's
> ok.

Again, I cannot have had a look into the sources. They are not available to the public.
I got the ideas
a) from the UWIN mailing list (the add .exe on close patch, see http://www.research.att.com/lists/uwin-users/2001/08/msg00043.html)
b) from playing with the binaries (rename() and link() logic)

Glenn and David commented a bit on those on request. Their comments were something like: "Don't add the .exe extension to "b" on rename("a.exe", "b")! Specifying an .exe extension indicates that the users knows what he's doing." [I had first added .exe to b, because I thought UWIN was wrong in this case.]
Again, no code and not even implementation details.
I believe that wouldn't have helped me either, as I don't know their underlying data structures and they do not know Cygwin's.
I've invented my own implementations.
There are no other UWIN related patches than those.
All other patches are bug fixes or small corrections to make Cygwin behave more consistent.

> > I found something interesting in the archives, see 
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2001-02/msg00417.html. He 
> didn't need a release from AT&T, did he?
> > 
> 
> There's a difference.  He didn't contribute to Cygwin beyond
> May 2000 and his contributions weren't AST or U/Win related
> at all.

I was just trying to be picky :-)

> Licensing issues are really a big *@#$ but we have to be careful.
> We may not even take any code which smells GPL.  It would infect
> the Cygwin Library License.  For that reason we're most happy
> about completely self-written code or copies/ports of BSD licensed
> source.

Are the issues cleared now?

Karsten

--
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/