Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <3AC2520E.96D89DC8@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:05:18 -0500
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and cygipc
References: <20010328103531 DOT C465 AT dothill DOT com> <20010328105608 DOT C32159 AT redhat DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 10:35:31AM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
> >I will be contributing PostgreSQL to Cygwin shortly.  Would you be
> >willing to contribute cygipc?  Otherwise, we will have other instance
> >of a package with an external dependency.  Although, since this is a
> >contrib package and not a latest one may be it is not too bad.  On the
> >other hand, making cygipc a part of the Cygwin distribution is a good
> >thing independent of the PostgreSQL dependency issue.

I am willing to put the cygipc package on the cygwin mirrors as a
"standard component", but there are a few issues with actually
contributing it to Red Hat...see below.

> I have no objections to doing this but a wish list item would be for
> someone to contribute an IPC implementation as part of the Cygwin DLL.

Unfortunately, anyone who has seen the cygipc code is "contaminated" and
can't really contribute IPC to the cygwin dll -- especially me.  Since I
don't own the copyright to a lot of the code in cygipc, I can't
contribute the existing stuff directly to the cygwin dll (and assign
copyright to Red Hat).

Even if the client function calls are someday added to cygwin1.dll in a
"cleanroom" way, you still need to have a daemon process running that
will manage the requests, don't you?  It's not enough just to add "IPC
calls" to the dll; Linux handles this by letting the kernel (a running
process) manage IPC.

Worse, the existence of the cygipc library as a standard component will
dis-incentive folks to develop a working substitute that CAN be added to
the cygwin dll.

Do we *really* want to include cygipc in "contrib"?

--Chuck