On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:22:40AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote: >On 9/3/10 12:45 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>If you read the announcement and followed the discussions on this list, >>you know why we had to do it. If it helps to share the pain, I don't >>like it either. Not the faintest. > >Of course I have, and I understand the workaround. What I don't >understand is why the pipefs technique (for which you had working code, >IIRC) wasn't used in the end. Was it the difficulty of changing >cygtools to use the new interface? The additional interface >complexity? Personally, I'd argue both are worth it.
We're already using the pipefs technique. We just aren't making it the default. Since you are subscribed to cygwin-developers, the time to speak up was when this was discussed there rather than trying to rehash the discussion here. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple