On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:45:16PM +0100, Karsten Fleischer wrote:
I'm just asking for assurances.
Can you get someone from ATT to send email here saying that they have
no interest in your changes? That + your assignment will be enough for
me.
Glenn Fowler and David Korn will prepare a
- Original Message -
From: Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mmap (MapViewOfFile resp.) alwaus map whole pages. A page is 4096
bytes long.
If a file is, say, 8190 bytes, then we have a two page map, size 8192.
So we have two trailing 0 bytes. If getpagesize() returns 4096, gcc
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 09:32:57PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mmap (MapViewOfFile resp.) alwaus map whole pages. A page is 4096
bytes long.
If a file is, say, 8190 bytes, then we have a two page map, size 8192.
===
- Original Message -
From: Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now, the pagesize on Windows is 4K. If the file size is
coincidentally
4096 or 8192 or any other multiple of 4K, gcc knows that it has to
fallback to it's slow method since getpagesize() has returned the
correct
And, I'm sorry but it really looks to me like you'd need a
release from
ATT indicating that any patches you provided to us are
unemcumbered by
this license. I don't see how you can sign away the rights to any
patches that you make if you have been working on code that is covered
by this
If we just left out that patch we won't have a problem.
OK.
Two other patches mimic UWIN behavior. That can not be a
problem, since Cygwin also has adopted the UWIN symbolics links.
Mimicing isn't a problem as long as you didn't look into the
sources and get the idea from there. If
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 09:50:50AM -0500, Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrote:
If we just left out that patch we won't have a problem.
OK.
Two other patches mimic UWIN behavior. That can not be a
problem, since Cygwin also has adopted the UWIN symbolics links.
Mimicing isn't a problem
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 08:53:07AM -0500, Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrote:
And, I'm sorry but it really looks to me like you'd need a
release from
ATT indicating that any patches you provided to us are
unemcumbered by
this license. I don't see how you can sign away the rights to any
I know about that.
Ok. Then that's the way to go. Just follow the procedures in
http://cygwin.com/contrib.html . If your fix is big you'll
need to fill
out an assignment form as that web page mentions.
It's a whole bunch of small fixes. I think I need to fill out the assignment form.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 07:59:12AM -0500, Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrote:
It's a whole bunch of small fixes. I think I need to fill out the assignment form.
Yeah, please send it as soon as possible since you'll have to send
it by snail mail. Sometimes it takes two to three weeks for some
- Original Message -
From: Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- getpagesize() should return a value compatible with mmap(), that
is dwAllocGranularity (65536) instead of dwPageSize (1024).
We discussed that months ago. I think we're not going to change that
(it's 4096, not 1024,
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 12:54:06AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- getpagesize() should return a value compatible with mmap(), that
is dwAllocGranularity (65536) instead of dwPageSize (1024).
We discussed that months
It's a whole bunch of small fixes. I think I need to fill
out the assignment form.
Yeah, please send it as soon as possible since you'll have to send
it by snail mail. Sometimes it takes two to three weeks for some
reason.
OK, I'll fill it out later today.
Is it OK to send patches
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 09:13:01AM -0500, Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrote:
It's a whole bunch of small fixes. I think I need to fill
out the assignment form.
Yeah, please send it as soon as possible since you'll have to send
it by snail mail. Sometimes it takes two to three weeks for
Glenn found some test cases where mmap() failed and has
also written a nice test program. I will get this to you later.
He also states that the value returned by getpagesize()
must conform to mmap() alignment by definition in the SUSv2.
I'm not quite sure about that, though.
See my
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 10:09:59AM -0500, Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrote:
But, uhm, what exactly is a `superuser' from your point of view?
We don't have that concept except for SYSTEM as _the_ user which
is able to change user context w/o changing security policies.
And on 9x/Me...
Does
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 04:28:54PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/ntsec.html
It's rather old and a bit badly maintained but it's basically still
correct.
Unfortunately, it doesn't contain any word about the ability to change
user context w/o password
The problem is that by default the Everyone group has the uid and
gid 0. The user can change that in the passwd and group files.
OK, I'll take that out again then.
You just should stick with uid/gid 18 for the user SYSTEM. Are you
familar with the NT security concept? If you want to have
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 10:50:46AM -0500, Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrote:
http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/ntsec.html
It's rather old and a bit badly maintained but it's basically still
correct.
I've read it a long time ago...
I'm feeling flattered. :-)
One general question,
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 02:45:51PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Is it OK to send patches to 1.3.3-2 or should I move them to 1.3.6 first?
I would suggest to move them to the latest from CVS. If you're
always working against the latest from CVS you don't get hit too
much by changes from other
If you've actually looked at the UWIN sources, this is not
enough. IANAL
either, but I believe that this means you've been tainted. That means
that we can't use your patches. Sorry.
I've never had the chance to look at the UWIN sources. It's proprietary.
As I said before, the UWIN
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 11:18:04AM -0500, Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrote:
If you've actually looked at the UWIN sources, this is not enough.
IANAL either, but I believe that this means you've been tainted. That
means that we can't use your patches. Sorry.
I've never had the chance to look at
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 03:37:41PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 09:13:01AM -0500, Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrote:
Glenn found some test cases where mmap() failed and has also written a
nice test program. I will get this to you later. He also states that
the value
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 01:40:19PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 11:18:04AM -0500, Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrote:
If you've actually looked at the UWIN sources, this is not enough.
IANAL either, but I believe that this means you've been tainted. That
means that we
I'm not sure but I don't think it matters if the sources are
proprietary. Maybe this is getting incredibly picky but if you adapted
algorithms from other non-GPL compliant programs then that is probably
an issue, too.
I don't know if something like If the first four bytes of a file are
OK, more detailed. I allow only absolute pathes in $SHELL and don't
allow any *csh. If superuser then only shells from [/usr][/local]/bin
are considered trusted shells. If not superuser shells from other
directories are allowed, but if uid != euid or gid != egid the shell
and the
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 02:03:43AM +0100, Karsten Fleischer wrote:
I'm not sure but I don't think it matters if the sources are
proprietary. Maybe this is getting incredibly picky but if you adapted
algorithms from other non-GPL compliant programs then that is probably
an issue, too.
I
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 02:03:44AM +0100, Karsten Fleischer wrote:
FWIW, I'm checking on this internally now.
Please do so.
I will.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 02:04:47AM +0100, Karsten Fleischer wrote:
It's not a major change. SUSv2 doesn't say that you have to use
/bin/sh for a shell. It even says that $SHELL can name the user's
favorite shell.
Every UNIX system that I've ever seen uses /bin/sh. The SUSv2 says that
system
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 08:31:49PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 02:03:43AM +0100, Karsten Fleischer wrote:
I'm not sure but I don't think it matters if the sources are
proprietary. Maybe this is getting incredibly picky but if you adapted
algorithms from other
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll stop apologizing for this after this message but I will reiterate
that I don't like this. I do get asked about this kind of thing all
of
the time within and without Red Hat, though. I don't want to be in a
position
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
Of Karsten Fleischer
It's not a major change.
SUSv2 doesn't say that you have to use /bin/sh for a shell. It even says
that $SHELL can name the user's favorite shell.
I know that you always have trouble
Hi Cygwin folks,
having seen some references to pdksh on the list today I think I must have a
coming out now.
I've been working with David Korn and Glenn Fowler some weeks ago to get the
real ksh93 and all the other ATT stuff (AST libraries and tools) going on
Cygwin.
There are still some
are thinking about providing a modified version of the cygwin
DLL with ksh, then I hope you think again. It's a very bad idea.
However, if you insist, I hope that you'll have a separate mailing list
available for support. We definitely won't be supporting it here.
Please mail to me at both
Sorry. That's not how it works.
If you have patches to provide, check out the cygwin web page. Click on
the Contributing link.
I know about that.
If you really are thinking about providing a modified version of
the cygwin
DLL with ksh, then I hope you think again. It's a very bad idea
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 02:25:53AM +0100, Karsten Fleischer wrote:
Sorry. That's not how it works.
If you have patches to provide, check out the cygwin web page. Click on
the Contributing link.
I know about that.
Ok. Then that's the way to go. Just follow the procedures in
36 matches
Mail list logo
