Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/04/06/17:41:10
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 04:31:06PM -0600, Dave Trollope wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 10:01:36PM -0600, Dave Trollope wrote:
>>>Since it exists on Linux and Solaris, I figured that this was new to
>>>Cygwin and its applications. The question is, for what was it
>>>introduced to both Linux and Solaris, and shouldn't it be introduced to
>>>Cygwin?
>>
>>That's rarely the question.
>>
>>The question is "Who's going to do the work to get it into Cygwin?"
>
>That was my next question if the answer to the first was yes.
>
>I would willingly create a patch myself, but I don't currently
>understand what this error code is for, I was hoping someone would
>know.
>
>>The way to get something into Cygwin is to send a patch.
>>
>>Hopefully, you'd implement both the errno and the code for detecting
>>it, whereever it exists. Otherwise, as Corinna indicates, there is no
>>reason for the errno. If some code is expecting it, without making it
>>conditional, you could easily make a case that THAT code is in error
>>since it's frightfully simple to check for this type of thing.
>
>I agree, but since I don't know what it means it would be unwise to
>just throw it in.
Most people seem to have this backwards. Rather then spend an
inordinate amount of time asking for permission or insight in a mailing
list, you could, instead, create a patch and ask for it to be included.
In the process of creating a patch, you would end up actually
understanding what is going on, so you'd educate yourself in the
process.
There's certainly no harm in asking for insight from a mailing list but
after a few days of no real response, it's usually a safe bet that you
can probably find more understanding by searching the net via google
and/or looking at the code.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -