shm status

[Charles Wilson]

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