This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: shm status



Robert Collins wrote:


-----Original Message-----
From: cygwin-developers-owner@cygwin.com [mailto:cygwin-developers-owner@cygwin.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





Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]