Christopher Faylor wrote: > > It looks like the patch will do the job but I would like to be convinced > that there is no other way around this problem. If I'm reading this > correctly, this change requires modifying any code which uses cygwin. > That's something we should try to avoid at all costs.
I second that 100%. My proposal *allows* porters to avoid CLOSE_WAIT by making some changes in daemons, but none in the children processes. No change is required anywhere. The additional Cygwin functionality would be invisible to applications that don't explicitly use it. Pierre
