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/
