Issue with cygwin_daemon merge

[Nicholas Wourms]

Conrad Scott wrote:
> "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>>On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 09:22:49PM +0100, Conrad Scott wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I've been worried and confused about my proposed merge of the
>>>cygwin_daemon branch, because some of the files in the branch have a
>>>different name from those in HEAD: in particular, this applies to the
>>>System V IPC header files (ipc.h, msg.h, etc.).
>>>
>>>In the branch these are in include/sys with the correct names, while
>>
> in
> 
>>>HEAD they are in the main cygwin source directory with mangled names
>>>(cygwin_ipc.h, etc.) -- this was done to avoid confusing
>>
> configuration
> 
>>>scripts etc. that would otherwise have seen the headers.
>>>
>>>I've come to the conclusion that the best bet (i.e., what would make
>>
> my
> 
>>>life easiest) is to have the files under the same names in both
>>
> branch
> 
>>>and HEAD, but keep them out of the line-of-fire so that nothing finds
>>
> by
> 
>>>mistake.  The problem with the location used by HEAD is that they
>>
> don't
> 
>>>end up in the installed directory areas and so make testing, even
>>>locally, rather difficult.
>>>
>>>My suggestion is to put these headers in include/cygwin with the
>>
> correct
> 
>>>names.
>>
>>Is the interface working in this merge?  If so, then it seems like
> 
> putting
> 
>>the files in sys is the way to go.
> 
> 
> Only the shm interface is available, and until all are working and
> cygserver can replace the cygipc package, I'm assuming that we can't
> expose any of them.
> 
> 
>>Otherwise putting them in include/cygwin is ok.
> 
> 
> Thanks: it sounds like this is the way to go.  I'm not clear if/how I
> can produce a patch that moves files: is it possible?
> 
> Or would it be okay for me to go ahead and make the change in HEAD
> myself?  The change involves moving the relevant files and editing both
> them and a couple of the cygserver* files that include them.

Wouldn't it just be easier to use "-x foo.h -x foe.h -x 
fum.h" type arguments with cvs diff to generate a patch 
without these headers?  Then you could adjust the includes 
in the source file(s) in a seperate checkin.

Cheers,
Nicholas