packages that should be in the cygwin distribution but aren't

[Reini Urban]

Christopher Faylor schrieb:
> 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".

All these suggestion were related to the packages gerrit suggested.

 >>>Do we have the at command? smartmontools? ntfs-progs? some watchdog?

A package is not always enough, when really the DLL should be enhanced.
-- 
Reini Urban
http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/