This is the mail archive of the cygwin 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: stat(2) triggers on-demand virus scan

> >>I just wanted to make it clear that we aren't going to be 
> making any 
> >>special concessions to a product like a virus scanner which cause 
> >>perfectly acceptable code to misbehave.  If that is the 
> case then it 
> >>is a situation for the virus scanner to work out.  It's not a 
> >>requirement that Cygwin work around things like this.
> >
> >Well, that is a pretty strong statement, I'd expect from a 
> for-profit 
> >company run by corporate management.
> This is a practical decision.
> We are not going to visit the slippery slope of adding code 
> to Cygwin to work around other third party software.  We 

Huh?  Has it even been 24 hours since you suggested Cygwin be changed in a
non-standardized manner merely to band-aid a broken third-party IRC client?
And doesn't Cygwin still create sparse files for the benefit of one single
third-party application?  The slope you mention has already been visited on
more than one occaision.

> However, this is a free software project so people have the 
> ability to inspect the source code and offer patches.  If 
> someone offers a patch to fix problems with a virus scanner 
> which doesn't involve any special tests for the virus 
> scanner, doesn't involve extra code to work around the virus 
> scanner, and doesn't involve doing something like, say, using 
> sockets instead of pipes because the virus scanner doesn't 
> like pipes, then, sure, we'll consider the code.  Otherwise, 
> this is what I would call a "special concession to third 
> party software" and I'm not interested in littering the code 
> with those.

Again, that last sentence is simply not a true statement, unless you want to
split hairs about the "littering" part.  And I have to question the veracity
of a "PTC" statement that has as its prerequisites that the patch involve no
actual code.

> Perhaps Corinna has a different opinion and will convince me 
> otherwise but, until that time, I just thought I would make 
> the ground rules clear.  I thought this was obvious stuff but 
> I guess it wasn't.

No, and I guess it still isn't.

BTW, OP: Update your 1.3.x install.  It's the 21st century for God's sake.

Gary R. Van Sickle

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

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