On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 03:08:44PM +0100, Reini Urban wrote:
Gerrit P. Haase schrieb:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 11:50:19PM +0100, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Maybe these are not standard packages for administrators, but since you
asked for development packages, these all are basic libraries or
compilers for developers.
And, yet, I'm a developer, and I don't have one of those libraries on my
system.
....
Anyway, I think I got your point. I was really missing top, but today I
learned that it is already part of the distribution.
Do we have the at command? smartmontools? ntfs-progs? some watchdog?
I'm looking into adding some mstask.h and ntifs.h to w32api,
but my time is limited.
I'd prefer far more diagnostic features for developers,
esp. better /proc.
Maybe hook those automounts off cygwin.dll and let mount handle that on
demand.
I REALLY don't understand what the confusion is here.
I was not soliciting changes to the cygwin DLL or additions to w32api.
I was not asking for someone to provide a list of random Debian
packages.
I provided a list of packages which I thought acted as an example for
what I was trying to accomplish. I was trying to come up with a list of
missing standard *UNIX/Linux* packages.
And some more parts of util-linux.
"some more parts of util-linux" is not specific enough to do anything.
And some kind of port for getloadavg().
And some hook for mount to load + unload (!) ntifs-based drivers in unix
fashion: ext2fs, ext3fs, procfs, romfs, swapfs, cofs, devfs, ...
There is an obvious difference between "packages that should be in the
distribution" and "getloadavg" or "ntifs-based drivers".
If you'd like to discuss "How I'd love to improve the Cygwin DLL", feel
free to start another thread. There is no reason to hijack this one.
I had actually naively hoped that people would provide feedback along the
lines of "We're missing elm" not "I think that someone should take months
of time and develop a driver model for the Cygwin DLL".