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
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 11:03:16 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: ip.h & tcp.h
Message-ID: <20020408150316.GA9415@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <000e01c1dedd$cc734690$0610a8c0 AT wyw>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <000e01c1dedd$cc734690$0610a8c0@wyw>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 05:14:27PM +0800, Wu Yongwei wrote:
>>You should just adapt whatever you need from the Single UNIX
>>Specification.
>
>Sorry but SUSv2 says nothing about the struct definitions.  Or at least
>I cannot get any meaningful search results.

Ok.  In that case we'll have to make do with the Berkeley code.  Just
include the license info in your patch.

>>I'll leave it to the collective wisdom of this mailing list to help you
>>on your painful road of enlightenment with regard to submitting a
>>patch.  Your last effort was a good first try but you still have a ways
>>to go.
>
>I know what a patch is.  But I would like to ask, plan, and do.  It is
>really painful to learn to first do and then ask.

I guess it depends on where you want to place the pain.  If you'd
submitted a patch and mentioned that you'd searched the SUSv2 without
finding anything, the patch probably would have gone in already.  You
have mentioned several times that you've incorporated some changes in
your local tree so the act of doing a 'cvs diff -up' should not cause
too much pain.  That just leaves writing a Changelog which you'd have to
do regardless.

You could have sent email to cygwin-patches with the patch and the
ChangeLog and your change would have been in by now, after (from
experience) two or three mail messages telling you that your ChangeLog
was incorrect.

What I'm trying to do is cut down on 27 messages saying

"Why doesn't cygwin have this functionality???"

"It seems to me that this should work!!!"

"Did I mention that it works for me???"

when all that is required is a patch and a ChangeLog.

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/