Re: [bug-gnulib] wait-process module

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bruno Haible wrote: > If you need a functionality on Unix but not on Windows, you > apparently attach a different meaning to "portability" than the one > I try to achieve with my contributions to gnulib. Not really, but the CVS server functionality ha

Re: [bug-gnulib] wait-process module

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bruno Haible wrote: > I have nothing against providing a portable API with a Unix > implementation, and the Woe32 implementation comes later. But I > refuse an API which is a priori known to be unimplementable on > Woe32 (other than with Cygwin). Stil

Re: [bug-gnulib] wait-process module

Derek R. Price wrote: > Doesn't the fact that Cygwin provided an implementation imply that > there is a way to accomplish it? Cygwin provides not only a implementation, but also fork(), exec(), exit() implementations - that deal specially with the case of a Cygwin program invoking another Cygwin

Re: [bug-gnulib] wait-process module

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bruno Haible wrote: > I have nothing against providing a portable API with a Unix implementation, > and the Woe32 implementation comes later. But I refuse an API which is > a priori known to be unimplementable on Woe32 (other than with Cygwin). Doesn

Re: [bug-gnulib] wait-process module

Derek R. Price wrote: > Well, I'm using the macros already defined in the wait-process module. > If WIFSIGNALED and WTERMSIG are returning the wrong values under > Windows, then the module is already broken because wait_subprocess() is > defined to exit or return 127 if the child died because of a

Re: [bug-gnulib] wait-process module

Any further comments on this, Bruno? Derek R. Price wrote: > Bruno Haible wrote: > >> When I say that it is _not_ portable to Windows, I mean the following: >> If someone writes a program that uses the feature, the feature will not work >> on > > Well, I'm using the macros already defined in th

Re: [bug-gnulib] wait-process module

Bruno Haible wrote: > When I say that it is _not_ portable to Windows, I mean the following: > If someone writes a program that uses the feature, the feature will not work > on Well, I'm using the macros already defined in the wait-process module. If WIFSIGNALED and WTERMSIG are returning the wr

Re: [bug-gnulib] wait-process module

Derek, > I apologize for the misunderstanding. You hadn't replied to new points > raised by three different people Noone raised an important change request regarding the wait-process module in a year. > and in general the process on GNULIB > has seemed to me to be that no response meant approva

Re: [bug-gnulib] wait-process module

Bruno Haible wrote: > This is not an acceptable way of working together. The 'wait-process' module > in under my responsibility, as you can see from the modules/wait-process file. > We discussed the patch, and the last thing I said about that patch was that > I was opposed to it. Your reply was no

Re: [bug-gnulib] wait-process module

Derek, > Since there have been no new objections raised to the patch proposed in > this thread > for > well-nigh a year, now, I've installed the change. This is not an acceptable way of working together. The 'wait-process' modul