[#7978] Patch for Unix socket peer credentials — "James F. Hranicky" <jfh@...>

This patch adds support for getting the uid and gid of the peer

27 messages 2006/06/09
[#8004] Re: Patch for Unix socket peer credentials — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/06/16

In article <200606091528.30171.jfh@cise.ufl.edu>,

[#8005] Re: Patch for Unix socket peer credentials — "James F. Hranicky" <jfh@...> 2006/06/16

On Friday 16 June 2006 11:51, Tanaka Akira wrote:

[#8010] Re: Patch for Unix socket peer credentials — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/06/17

In article <200606161327.35948.jfh@cise.ufl.edu>,

[#8191] Re: Patch for Unix socket peer credentials — "James F. Hranicky" <jfh@...> 2006/07/10

On Saturday 17 June 2006 06:27, Tanaka Akira wrote:

[#8193] Re: Patch for Unix socket peer credentials — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2006/07/11

In article <200607101352.16804.jfh@cise.ufl.edu>,

[#8212] Re: Patch for Unix socket peer credentials — "James F. Hranicky" <jfh@...> 2006/07/13

On Tuesday 11 July 2006 00:10, Tanaka Akira wrote:

[#8217] Re: Patch for Unix socket peer credentials — nobu@... 2006/07/14

Hi,

[#8257] Re: Patch for Unix socket peer credentials — "James F. Hranicky" <jfh@...> 2006/07/18

On Thursday 13 July 2006 22:48, nobu@ruby-lang.org wrote:

[#8258] Re: Patch for Unix socket peer credentials — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2006/07/18

On Jul 18, 2006, at 12:27 PM, James F. Hranicky wrote:

[#8073] 1.8.5p1 build failure on Solaris 10 — "Daniel Berger" <Daniel.Berger@...>

Solaris 10

23 messages 2006/06/27
[#8074] Re: 1.8.5p1 build failure on Solaris 10 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/06/28

Hi,

[#8078] Re: 1.8.5p1 build failure on Solaris 10 — "Daniel Berger" <Daniel.Berger@...> 2006/06/28

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#8079] Re: 1.8.5p1 build failure on Solaris 10 — ts <decoux@...> 2006/06/28

>>>>> "D" == Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@qwest.com> writes:

[#8096] Re: 1.8.5p1 build failure on Solaris 10 — ville.mattila@... 2006/06/29

ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> wrote on 28.06.2006 17:37:00:

Re: Win32 Extension Issues Wanted!

From: URABE Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>
Date: 2006-06-27 04:31:53 UTC
List: ruby-core #8063
Hi all. What Nakamura says is in short are:

* The main concern is that each DLL holds their own file descriptors
table and malloc management areas (and so on), and those of MSVCRT[78]*
are not compatible with current one.
* Moving to MSVCRT[78]* breaks binary compatibility of extension
libraries.  Not only will they become incompatible with current mswin32
version, also they will with mingw32.  That's not acceptable.
* He is very angry for Microsoft continues shipping incompatible runtime
every time.

In This Thread