Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/03/14/20:24:21
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 07:42:40PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>>Thank goodness someone has found the Cygwin release that's a panacea
>>for all subsequent Cygwin ills! I'd heard B20 touted as this for so
>>long that I was afraid Cygwin would never reach such heights again.
>>Boy am I relieved! I guess there's no need for further Cygwin releases,
>>since 1.3.9 is now the cure all (actually, this makes me wonder why
>>there were any releases after B20....) Anybody have any idea what would
>>be a good use of the newly freed
>>
>>up time of members of this group?
>
>
>LOL!
Ditto.
>Although, the XEmacs-centric crowd has been recommending "stay at
>1.3.2" for some time, now. So unfortunately, 1.3.9 is NOT a complete
>panacea. We *may* actually have to keep developing cygwin...mebbe
>1.3.11 will be all the juicy goodness of 1.3.2 + 1.3.9, and then we can
>stop?
Yes. I've heard that. They broke something in Xemacs so that it stopped
working with 1.3.3+.
I think it's ttys or maybe processes or something. There is definitely some
kind of problem there that one of the developers should check into. I'd
do it but I don't get paid to work on Xemacs!
I hope this helps someone track down the problem, at least. Unfortunately
I have no more time to help and I only know how to program cygwin, myself,
anyway.
cgf
--
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/
- Raw text -