X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>
To: <Cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: stat(2) triggers on-demand virus scan
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:37:33 -0600
Message-ID: <002401c61995$c9b54740$020aa8c0@DFW5RB41>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <20060114221213.GC9302@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

[snip]
> >>I just wanted to make it clear that we aren't going to be 
> making any 
> >>special concessions to a product like a virus scanner which cause 
> >>perfectly acceptable code to misbehave.  If that is the 
> case then it 
> >>is a situation for the virus scanner to work out.  It's not a 
> >>requirement that Cygwin work around things like this.
> >
> >Well, that is a pretty strong statement, I'd expect from a 
> for-profit 
> >company run by corporate management.
> 
> This is a practical decision.
> 
> We are not going to visit the slippery slope of adding code 
> to Cygwin to work around other third party software.  We 

Huh?  Has it even been 24 hours since you suggested Cygwin be changed in a
non-standardized manner merely to band-aid a broken third-party IRC client?
And doesn't Cygwin still create sparse files for the benefit of one single
third-party application?  The slope you mention has already been visited on
more than one occaision.

[snip]
> However, this is a free software project so people have the 
> ability to inspect the source code and offer patches.  If 
> someone offers a patch to fix problems with a virus scanner 
> which doesn't involve any special tests for the virus 
> scanner, doesn't involve extra code to work around the virus 
> scanner, and doesn't involve doing something like, say, using 
> sockets instead of pipes because the virus scanner doesn't 
> like pipes, then, sure, we'll consider the code.  Otherwise, 
> this is what I would call a "special concession to third 
> party software" and I'm not interested in littering the code 
> with those.
> 

Again, that last sentence is simply not a true statement, unless you want to
split hairs about the "littering" part.  And I have to question the veracity
of a "PTC" statement that has as its prerequisites that the patch involve no
actual code.

> Perhaps Corinna has a different opinion and will convince me 
> otherwise but, until that time, I just thought I would make 
> the ground rules clear.  I thought this was obvious stuff but 
> I guess it wasn't.
> 

No, and I guess it still isn't.

BTW, OP: Update your 1.3.x install.  It's the 21st century for God's sake.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle


--
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/