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 Message-ID: <3EBDB987.2050405@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 22:46:31 -0400 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030401 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Collins CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: cygipc (and PostgreSQL) XP problem resolved! References: <20030506174725 DOT GE1652 AT tishler DOT net> <3EB84F52 DOT 3020608 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20030507133326 DOT GA1824 AT tishler DOT net> <3EB9A54B DOT 8060500 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20030508135217 DOT GD512 AT tishler DOT net> <3EBB22F5 DOT 4000801 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <1052541657 DOT 1675 DOT 5 DOT camel AT localhost> <3EBC8ED0 DOT 4040906 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20030510072239 DOT GA19367 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <1052554219 DOT 1824 DOT 14 DOT camel AT localhost> <3EBD2F64 DOT 6080604 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <1052611835 DOT 897 DOT 27 DOT camel AT localhost> In-Reply-To: <1052611835.897.27.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert Collins wrote: >>I take it you're in favor of adding cygipc to the distro (or are you >>speaking academically)? > > > Frankly, I don't care whether it's in or not. The issues with cygipc > getting integrated to the 'kernel', and with it fulfilling some corner > cases wihtout such integration are moot while no-one has the time to > progress cygdaemon's SysVIPC code. No, cygipc will never be integrated into the cygwin kernel. It can't be, given the licensing issues -- it will always remain an addon package, whether 'in distribution' or outside (as it is now). The issue is whether to make the cygipc package a full-fledged part of the cygwin world, distributed via the mirror system -- like zlib, libxml, postgresql, etc -- instead of from some schmuck's personal website (e.g. mine). > And heck, so far cygdaemon does the tty security thing that was it's > original requirement, as well as all the shm functions, all the key > functions, and some of the sem functions. All with security set > correctly on NT, and via mode_t values on 9x. Fork safe. Dirty process > aborts were mostly handled (which I don't think cygipc handles at > *all*). Rule of thumb: cygipc sucks. That's (one of the reasons) why I resisted adding it to the distribution. > Conceptually it was multi-user ready (i.e. run with 'switch > users' or Terminal Services safely). > > From memory cygdaemon had to be 80% complete when I handed over > maintainership. I simply didn't have time to complete it. I understand. > I've no idea whats happened since, as I haven't been tracking commits to > it - the exact same lack of time that prompted me to step down as > maintainer. Conrad Scott provided some patches, but he disappeared abrubtly last September. Nobody has been able to contact him at all since then, AFAIK -- and I've tried. Since his disappearance, IIRC nobody has patched anything in the cygdaemon code. > Again, IIRC, it was slower than cygipc at the time - but *no* > performance tuning had been attempted, so I don't find that surprising. Sure it was slower -- cygipc is fast and dirty, and does a lot of things wrong. But quickly. > Given the above, it should be clear that IF I had the time do some > something about it, I'd finish off cygdaemon, and THEN I'd have the > right to an opinion about cygipc coming into the distribution. Disagree. You have as much right to offer an opinion as anyone else, regardless of whether you did/will/won't/intend to fix cygdaemon. --Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/