Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <3D04164B.7000109@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 23:00:27 -0400
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT syncretize DOT net>
CC: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: shm status
References: <004901c21026$fe360530$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



Robert Collins wrote:

> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com 
>>[mailto:cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com] On Behalf Of 
>>Christopher Faylor
>>Sent: Monday, 10 June 2002 12:28 PM
>>
> 
>>>However, that doesn't stop you from compiling them, linking 
>>>
>>them against 
>>
>>>cygserver, and using them to help test and develop cygserver...
>>>
>>In reality, there is no reason why we couldn't include cygipc 
>>in the cygwin
>>release.  I was just concerned that the inclusion of cygipc 
>>would hinder the
>>development of a true cygwin DLL solution that used some of 
>>the principles
>>embodied in Robert/Egor's cygserver.


Right right right.  I was just raising the issue because it sounded to 
me like the proposition was to include ipcrm/ipcs/etc IN winsup.  THAT's 
what I was warning against.  If we just want the tools -- say, as a 
separate package -- then that's cool.  In fact, once cygserver's IPC 
component becomes a viable replacement for cygipc, I'll start including 
the ipc-tool executables (semtool, shmtool, etc) in the cygutils binary 
package.

 
> Yes, and we all agreed with that! I don't recall GPL issues ever being
> raised against the inclusion of the cygipc _package_.
> 
> Furthermore, with the federated setup.ini capability, there's no reason
> that someone 'out there' can't make cygipc available as a package if
> they want to. I still don't think that cygipc belongs in the main distro
> however.


True -- but it won't be me, because of the same "hinderances" that we 
feared originally.

--Chuck