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
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: RE: [RFA] A kinder, gentler check for /etc/{passwd,group} changes
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 13:43:20 +1000
Message-ID: <EA18B9FA0FE4194AA2B4CDB91F73C0EF7A25@itdomain002.itdomain.net.au>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [RFA] A kinder, gentler check for /etc/{passwd,group} changes
Thread-Index: AcE5SsuYUMgLr2llStGUz0RSTB+3XgAT1jmw
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id XAA07857



> -----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.
 
> >> I think that Corinna mentioned that we have to have a 
> cygwin that works
> >> without the daemon, actually:
> >
> >Oh. How up for discussion is that? Or does that mean "Current
> >functionality shall remain without the deamon, new stuff can 
> be daemon
> >dependent".
> 
> I think I would have a hard time selling the concept of the necessity
> to start a daemon if you want to run "make" on gcc.
>
> 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".

Rob