Re: Daemon (again)

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 06:06:07PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g.r.vansickle@worldnet.att.net>
>> You can, and I will, but I think I should address this security issue
>with mutt
>> first and reroll it.  Hopefully I can get that done yet tonight, but
>you know
>> how things go....
>
>For sure :}.
>
>> What exactly would you like me and others to test/evaluate?  From your
>post
>> previous to the above:
>>
>> "Also the code is in two distinct chunks:
>> 1) A daemon to run under NT and 9x and provide cross-process services
>to
>> cygwin.
>
>Does this chunk look like a reasonable implementation. Does cygwin start
>playing up/die badly. Are there any significant issues that *you* think
>would stop the release of (say) cygwin 1.7 with the daemon as-is.

My biggest issue is "Does cygwin run fine *without* the daemon?"  That's
the big one.

The reason for this is that we don't want to tell our customers that they
have to install a cygwin daemon just to compile their programs.  AFAIK,
the daemon is not going to provide any functionality that will improve
things like gcc or gdb so it has to be as unobtrusive as possible.

cgf