This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: cygipc (and PostgreSQL) XP problem resolved!
Robert Collins wrote:
I take it you're in favor of adding cygipc to the distro (or are you
Frankly, I don't care whether it's in or not. The issues with cygipc
getting integrated to the 'kernel', and with it fulfilling some corner
cases wihtout such integration are moot while no-one has the time to
progress cygdaemon's SysVIPC code.
No, cygipc will never be integrated into the cygwin kernel. It can't
be, given the licensing issues -- it will always remain an addon
package, whether 'in distribution' or outside (as it is now).
The issue is whether to make the cygipc package a full-fledged part of
the cygwin world, distributed via the mirror system -- like zlib,
libxml, postgresql, etc -- instead of from some schmuck's personal
website (e.g. mine).
And heck, so far cygdaemon does the tty security thing that was it's
original requirement, as well as all the shm functions, all the key
functions, and some of the sem functions. All with security set
correctly on NT, and via mode_t values on 9x. Fork safe. Dirty process
aborts were mostly handled (which I don't think cygipc handles at
Rule of thumb: cygipc sucks. That's (one of the reasons) why I resisted
adding it to the distribution.
Conceptually it was multi-user ready (i.e. run with 'switch
users' or Terminal Services safely).
From memory cygdaemon had to be 80% complete when I handed over
maintainership. I simply didn't have time to complete it.
I've no idea whats happened since, as I haven't been tracking commits to
it - the exact same lack of time that prompted me to step down as
Conrad Scott provided some patches, but he disappeared abrubtly last
September. Nobody has been able to contact him at all since then, AFAIK
-- and I've tried. Since his disappearance, IIRC nobody has patched
anything in the cygdaemon code.
Again, IIRC, it was slower than cygipc at the time - but *no*
performance tuning had been attempted, so I don't find that surprising.
Sure it was slower -- cygipc is fast and dirty, and does a lot of things
wrong. But quickly.
Given the above, it should be clear that IF I had the time do some
something about it, I'd finish off cygdaemon, and THEN I'd have the
right to an opinion about cygipc coming into the distribution.
Disagree. You have as much right to offer an opinion as anyone else,
regardless of whether you did/will/won't/intend to fix cygdaemon.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html