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: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 06:22:17 -0700
From: Jeff Bailey <jbailey AT nisa DOT net>
To: cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: Inetutils release
Message-ID: <20020409062217.A18760@nisa.net>
References: <20020408110250 DOT A809 AT nisa DOT net> <20020409150943 DOT C1127 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20020409150943.C1127@cygbert.vinschen.de>; from cygwin@cygwin.com on Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:09:43PM +0200

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:09:43PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> > We're just getting ready for a new GNU Inetutils release, and I'm
> > trying my best to make sure that we run correctly on Cygwin.  I
> > can't tell who's the maintainer of the package so that I can let
> > (him/her) know when the release is ready.  Can someone please let
> > me know?

> I'm the maintainer but I'd like to keep this public.  

Sure, no prob.  I just thought this might be sufficiently 'off-topic'.

> FWIW, we're still using 1.3.2 with a lot of very intrusive changes.
> That's the reason I never tried to return the changes to the main
> line.

> Anyway, did you ever took a look into the Cygwin version?  It
> contains especially the change to allow inetd to run as Windows NT
> service and another important change is to get rid of the handling
> of uid 0 as being the superuser.

I haven't looked, sorry.  I've never paid attention to the Cygwin
package management system (other than being thankful to all of you
when you got one)

I'd rather not take the inetd change upstream yet, since inetd will
probably get rewritten.  I'm trying to get all of the code in there
(C) the FSF, and clean it all up to use current GNU coding standards.

One of my plans is to clean up all of the daemons so that they support
running in a standalone fashion.  Perhaps the Right Thing might be to
put 'NT Service' support in there, so that it becomes available to all
of inetutils.

How intrusive is the change to remove dependancy on UID 0 as the
Superuser?  Is this a coding practice that we should be adopting?

If you folks are using inetutils as a primary package, I'd like to try
and support you as best as I can by getting what you need integrated
upstream.

-- 
"Frankly, trying to turn Windows into a decent educational software
development platform is about as fun as jumping naked into a pit of
rabid wolves."
 - As seen on slashdot

--
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/