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
Message-ID: <3D174694.3080901@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:19:32 -0400
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: usr/include/ndbm.h duplicate in cygwin-1.3.11-2
References: <20020624110004 DOT 31704 DOT qmail AT web21001 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> <3D17299B DOT 9020801 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20020624152057 DOT GA21962 AT redhat DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 10:15:55AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> 
>>Don't panic.  Let's see what cgf has to say about the issue, esp. with 
>>regards to cygwin exporting/not-exporting the db symbols in the future.
>>
> 
> Read the newlib mailing list.


I did.  Other than your two messages yesterday, I can't find any 
discussion of this issue at all.  It appears that the search/ directory 
and all of its contents and the two problematic header files (a) sprang 
fully formed from the head of  'fitzsim at sources dot redhat dot com' 
(Tom Fitzsimmons), (b) were applied directly to CVS without any discussion.

 From your second message on that list:

> Ok.  I can see that it is a recent addition and that there appears to be
> an object file in newlib to support it.  I wonder if this should be
> system specific, though.  Cygwin can't be the only newlib-using "OS"
> which already has a ndbm implementation, can it?


It appears that you think the db/ndbm header files from newlib *should* 
be sequestered, and are trying to start the debate on that list -- a 
debate which should have occurred PRIOR to 6/20's checkin, IMO.

The subtle hint: this discussion belongs on the newlib list.  Got it.

--Chuck


 





--
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/