Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID:	<80575AFA5F0DD31197CE00805F650D7602CDD0@wilber.adroit.com>
From:	"Robinow, David" <drobinow AT dayton DOT adroit DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject:	RE: RFC: linux compatibility
Date:	Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:03:56 -0400
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)

> > My biggest concern is backwards compatibility.
> > Is it worth Linux compatibility if it means "cygwin2.dll"?
> 
> The timezone API is the biggest problem here, and the most visible.
> Changing that might break compatibility all by itself.  I haven't
> checked into the whole story enough to know for sure.  I agree
> backward compatibility is an important goal.
 I'm not sure "cygwin2.dll" would be such a horrible idea.
 At the cost of a little disk space you could support two versions
without the "you've got two copies of cygwin1.dll" problem.
 Think of all the posters to this list who've said something like

 " I installed the latest cygwin release and it broke <name of
critical system here>.  I've been tearing my hair out for 3 days.
Finally I went back to old faithful B18.  [You guys suck!]"

 These people could simply keep a cygwin1.dll around to run
critical apps while at their leisure fixing whatever config
problems they have.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

- Raw text -