Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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, 12 Nov 2002 11:06:57 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: RFD: cygipc ENOSYS patch Message-ID: <20021112160657.GA13279@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20021105153841 DOT GA1756 AT tishler DOT net> <3DD124EC DOT 9090101 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DD124EC.9090101@ece.gatech.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:57:32AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >I've no objection. But would somebody PLEASE tell me what the HELL >we're waiting for with respect to the 64bit key_t change in newlib? > >I've had a new release of cygipc waiting for months, predicated on that >change, which I THOUGHT would happen "real soon". Who was supposed to make the change? I haven't been paying much attention to what's required. It does seem that our cygserver maintainer is MIA, though, so maybe that's part of the problem. I was hoping that we'd have a little more cygserver exposure in cygwin 1.3.1[345] but it doesn't seem to be happening. cgf >Now, I have to revert all of that (I didn't make a branch point at the >time -- why bother? the change was "imminent") before I release any >other updates. > >http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2002-07/msg00314.html and following. -- 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/