From: cgf AT bbc DOT com (Christopher Faylor) Subject: Re: cygwin32-developers problems? 10 Mar 1998 10:23:46 -0800 Message-ID: References: <199803100128 DOT UAA08056 AT hardy DOT bbc DOT com> Reply-To: cgf AT bbc DOT com To: cygwin32-developers AT cygnus DOT com In article <199803100309 DOT TAA05291 AT rtl DOT cygnus DOT com>, Geoffrey Noer wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >[...] >> The main thing I remember typing was that you could make a case that >> Linus had it easy compared to Cygwin. If something isn't working quite >> right in the kernel he can implement it. If he needs a nifty new >> synchronization primitive he can just code one into linux. > >We do have complete control over our Cygwin kernel so I don't think >our job is particularly harder but it is certainly as hard. We have >access to a large enough variety of locking primitives that I don't >think we need to write any. :-) One other suggestion I made in my lost email was to break out the cygwin development from the tools development. Actually, I think that Geoffrey has mentioned this before. You could modify the installation procedure so that there were three (or more?) packages. A "base" package, a "developers" package, a "users" package. This is nearly what is done now, but you could also allow click and choose installation of specific packages. If the three packages were always maintained separately then, maybe, they could also be released independently of each other. That would mean that when there was a problem with something like 'sh' as we've seen in B19, we could just release a new version of the "base" package and leave the other two alone... This doesn't speak to the issue of fixing up CYGWINB19, really, but it could remove some distractions. -- http://www.bbc.com/ cgf AT bbc DOT com "Strange how unreal VMS=>UNIX Solutions Boston Business Computing the real can be."