Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/03/13/11:53:23
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 09:48:33AM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
><http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PTC> ;-)
> Igor
Agh, no. This isn't a PTC situation.
Requiring specific cygwin releases is not a path we want to go down.
How many times does it have to be said? The cygwin1.dll name doesn't
change because it is supposed to always *work*. If you require a
specific release you're making a mistake.
And, of course, you (wayne) know about the GPL, right? If you do decide
to make a release based on an old version of cygwin, you'll have GPL
issues to consider.
cgf
>On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, wayne wrote:
>
>> Just an additional thought.. it would be nice to be able to select from
>> a specific release not just prev and current. I am creating a tool
>> and am going to require a particular cygwin release. So I am making
>> my own install repository But it would be nice.
>> Not bitching just a comment.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 11:01:53AM +0100, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
>> > * Christopher Faylor (03-03-13 08:51 +0100)
>> > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 06:02:22PM -0500, Rolf Campbell wrote:
>> > >> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> > >>> I've made a new version of the Cygwin DLL and associated utilities
>> > >>> available for download. As usual, a list of what has changed is below.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> - Fix setsid problem where processes did not correctly detach from a
>> > >>> console. (Christopher Faylor)
>> > >>
>> > >> I commonly run a compilation from within GNU Emacs. I've never had any
>> > >> problems with this until I tried running 1.3.21-1. I think it has to do
>> > >> with the changes to the console handling.
>> > >
>> > > Yeah, and isn't it a *shame* that when I suggest that people should try
>> > > a snapshot, they never do? The only way I have to test new features is
>> > > to release a new version of cygwin, apparently. And, then listen to the
>> > > complaints.
>> >
>> > Like in the old days: noone wants to try a "beta" or "snapshot"
>> > (except when he's got problems with the existing release). Call it
>> > "Preview Release" or "Release Candidate" and make it very easy
>> > accessible.
>> >
>> > Even I as a long-time-user wouldn't know (without research) where to
>> > get and how to install a "snapshot". Is it this "Exp" thingy in
>> > "Setup.exe"? Where to get the "new" Setup.exe? If it was offered
>> > directly on http://www.cygwin.com/, lots of people would be curious
>> > and try.
>> >
>> > Just to make my point clear: I have no problems with "betas". For
>> > example, I'm using Opera 7 since the first beta and I _even paid for
>> > the beta_...
>> >
>> > Thorsten
>
>--
> http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
> |\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu
>ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
> |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski
> '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
>
>Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!
> -- /usr/games/fortune
>
>
>--
>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/
--
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 -