This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-patches
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [PATCH] cygcheck: follow symbolic links
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-patches at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:58:31 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] cygcheck: follow symbolic links
- References: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0602161116540.22053@access1.cims.nyu.edu> <20060217113100.GT26541@calimero.vinschen.de> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0602170900350.1592@access1.cims.nyu.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0602221335110.4972@access1.cims.nyu.edu> <20060223112956.GF4294@calimero.vinschen.de> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0602230913440.13565@access1.cims.nyu.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0607191036580.13093@access1.cims.nyu.edu> <20060724111402.GG11991@calimero.vinschen.de> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0609280901120.15013@access1.cims.nyu.edu> <20061005152959.GB24684@calimero.vinschen.de>
- Reply-to: cygwin-patches at cygwin dot com
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 05:29:59PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Sep 28 09:06, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> [...]
>> > The latest fax was about this change, so I think this should still be
>> > covered, shouldn't it? Ping the guy nevertheless. We should stay on
>> > the safe side in legal questions.
>> >[...]
>> Looks like I've been remiss in following up on this, though I regenerated
>> the patch that same day. Attached is the new version of the patch. I
>> believe "the fax" (the new one) has been sent, but I've received no
>> notification of that, presumably because Corinna is not around...
>> Igor
>
>I didn't receive any notification either, so this somehow got stuck on
>one side. I'm going to check my side, would you mind to ping yours?
>
>As soon as that's clarified, I'll apply your patch.
Didn't we resolve a while ago not to worry about assignments for
cygcheck? I don't see any reason to care since it is not really a core
cygwin component - it's more of a debugging tool, and I don't see it
as a big deal for any corporate customers.
cgf