This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: stat(2) triggers on-demand virus scan
- From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>
- To: <Cygwin at Cygwin dot com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:37:33 -0600
- Subject: 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
> >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
> 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: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html