| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
| Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm |
| List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com> |
| List-Archive: | <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/> |
| List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> |
| List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs> |
| Sender: | cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com |
| Delivered-To: | mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
| Date: | Sun, 3 Mar 2002 08:54:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID: | <3578-Sun03Mar2002085418+0000-starksb@ebi.ac.uk> |
| X-Mailer: | 21.5 (beta2) "artichoke" XEmacs Lucid (via feedmail 9-beta-7 I); |
| VM 7.00 under 21.5 (beta2) "artichoke" XEmacs Lucid | |
| From: | David Starks-Browning <starksb AT ebi DOT ac DOT uk> |
| MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
| To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
| Subject: | RE: Is the Cygwin 1.3.2 DLL Win 2000 compatible? |
| In-Reply-To: | <4.3.1.2.20020301110418.0243f488@pop.ma.ultranet.com> |
| References: | <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20020228173048 DOT 024373c8 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> |
| <570DA4A1BC7DD4119AD7000629551498013E10E1 AT pjmnt11 DOT pjm DOT com> | |
| <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20020301110418 DOT 0243f488 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> |
On Friday 1 Mar 02, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) writes: > Perhaps. It's an esoteric one. The original poster of this question wanted > to know if Cygwin 1.3.2 would work with Win2000. I replied with the FAQ > entry that says Cygwin works with 9x/Me/NT/W2K/XP. The reply I got back > from the poster then was that he had seen this entry but thought it > referenced only the current Cygwin DLL (1.3.9 at that point). So the only > question I was raising was whether you think it would be more or less > confusing to people to add some wording to the FAQ entry that specifies > that any recent Cygwin DLL works with Windows, not just the latest. > It's not clear to me that this additional wording wouldn't raise more > questions than it answers. Judging by your response, I think leaving things > as is may be the best option. What do you think? I think it's best to leave this entry as it is. Thanks, David -- 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/
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |