Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 22:53:13 +0100 (BST)
From: Elfyn McBratney <elfyn AT ubertales DOT co DOT uk>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygipc (and PostgreSQL) XP problem resolved!
In-Reply-To: <3EBDE03B.5030802@ece.gatech.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305102243500.18930-100000@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 11 May 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:

> Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> 
> > Kinda, my other side was working for a production company and I was an 
> > editor. Uhm, I did  very little work on this and missed a few features 
> > here and there in the code. I'm interested in working on it, though.
> > 
> > Is there still interest in having a working (the other 20%) cygwin 
> > daemon?
> 
> Absolutely.  And that will be true regardless of whether cygipc is 
> accepted as a package for distribution via the mirror system.
> 
> cygipc sucks.  (Even the original author, Ludovic Lange, agrees with 
> that).  My fondest wish is for it to die.  But it's the best (only) 
> thing we have -- because it is fully functional, and cygserver is not.
> 
> The fear is/was, as Robert said waaayy back and quoted again today, that 
> by making it easy for cygipc to be used by 'the casual cygwin user,' we 
> remove any impetus for something better.  E.g. nobody would be 
> interested in working on cygserver if cygipc was 'already there'.
> 
> So, we decided to keep cygipc available -- but awkward to get to.  It 
> was a bit of social engineering -- that failed, as cgf pointed out last 
> Tuesday in this thread.
> 
> Egor wrote the original cygserver.  Robert worked on it, and added most 
> of the existing IPC functionality.  Conrad took over maintainership last 
> July and worked on IPC stuff (plus general cleanup, added some debugging 
> features, etc).  But he disappeared last September, and nobody has done 
> anything since.
> 
> cgf asked (plaintively) about the cygserver status in November.  Nobody 
> responded.  He asked again in January, to little immediate response -- 
> although you (Elfyn) responded in February -- but again, little happened 
> (I'm not being critical; life happens)..
> 
> So finally, cgf said it looks like our social engineering experiment 
> didn't work; perhaps it's time to relent and put cygipc into the 
> distribution.  But that DOESN'T mean that cygserver should be abandoned. 
>   Remember the mantra: cygipc sucks.  If you want to, and have the time, 
> PLEASE help finish cygserver -- so we can send cygipc to its 
> long-delayed doom.
> 
> Even if we do (temporarily) add cygipc to the cygwin distribution.

OK. After my lazy self has got lib{xml2,xslt} out, and other stuff out 
of the way, I'll take a look again (might not be for a while, though).

Elfyn
(too tired to type ;-)

-- 
Elfyn McBratney
Systems Administrator
ABCtales.com



--
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/