Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 00:16:56 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [RFA] A kinder, gentler check for /etc/{passwd,group} changes
Message-ID: <20010910001656.A1321@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <EA18B9FA0FE4194AA2B4CDB91F73C0EF7A25 AT itdomain002 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <EA18B9FA0FE4194AA2B4CDB91F73C0EF7A25@itdomain002.itdomain.net.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 01:43:20PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com]
>> Anyway, I'm not arguing against finer grained /etc/passwd checking, as
>> you noted, and Corinna has already implemented it, so...
>
>I'd just like to say to you and Corinna - Woohoo! those timings look
>nice.

Actually, now that I think of it, they should be faster.  When I was benchmarking
vfork, I was seeing something like 10-20% improvements over 1.3.2.

I'm not going to worry about that yet.
 
>> Cygwin has to be able to work like it does now without the daemon.  I
>> think that is what Corinna was saying.
>
>In other words we don't move anything that works today into the daemon,
>without keeping a non-daemon option.
>
>Hmm, lets see how that goes :]. I suspect we'll end up with a
>frustatingly long list of "Gee it would be nice to x, but that currently
>works without the daemon".

I still think that it might be possible to have a "works better with daemon"
"works ok without daemon" scenario, somehow.

I'm just not sure how, yet.

cgf