On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 07:13:49PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > So finally, IMO, it's up to Chuck - Chuck if you feel you wouldn't be > copying, rather creating anew something you have seen working elsewhere, > then stand up and be counted. Of course we shouldn't reproduce cygipc. What we need is a general purpose server process which has ipc just as one part. I just don't see a reason that Chuck couldn't work on the ipc part of that server. Assuming he _wants_ to, of course. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
- cygipc packaging was Updated setup.ini with description... Ralf Habacker
- Re: cygipc packaging was Updated setup.ini with de... Christopher Faylor
- Re: cygipc packaging was Updated setup.ini with de... Charles Wilson
- Re: cygipc packaging was Updated setup.ini with de... Charles Wilson
- Re: cygipc packaging was Updated setup.ini wit... Christopher Faylor
- Re: cygipc packaging was Updated setup.ini with de... Corinna Vinschen
- Re: cygipc packaging was Updated setup.ini with de... Corinna Vinschen
- Re: cygipc packaging was Updated setup.ini wit... Charles Wilson
- RE: cygipc packaging was Updated setup.ini with de... Ralf Habacker
- Re: cygipc packaging was Updated setup.ini with de... Charles Wilson
- RE: cygipc packaging was Updated setup.ini with de... Ralf Habacker
