On Jul 18 19:51, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
> On 7/18/16, 12:43 PM, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
> 
> 
> >On 7/18/16, 1:19 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> >>Btw., I didn't apply it yet because I was still waiting for a mailing
> >>list reply to https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2016-06/msg00460.html
> >>On second thought, this didn't look like a question, much.  So, what do
> >>you prefer?
> >>
> >>  "WinFSP+nobody"
> >>  "nodomain+nobody"
> >>  "no+body"
> >>
> >>Personally I like the third variation but I'm not religious about it.
> >
> >My preference is for nodomain+nobody, primarily because the individual
> >components “nodomain”, “nobody” describe the lack of domain and username
> >when read in isolation (i.e. not in the construction nodomain+nobody). But
> >WinFsp does not use these names (only the SID’s/UID’s) and you, Corinna,
> >as the Cygwin lead are more qualified than me to choose what fits Cygwin
> >best.
> 
> BTW, I now note that no+body is more inline with the existing practice of
> "Unknown+User”. I assumed that the parts of the “no+body” construction can
> be found in isolation (resulting in a domain of “no” and a user name of
> “body”), but perhaps this is not possible. Either way I am happy with
> whatever you choose.

Let's just try how it looks like.  I applied the patch using
"nodomain+nobody" for now and uploaded a developer snapshot to
https://cygwin.com/snapshots/

Please take a look.


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat