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
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:21:53 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf-idd AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: development under 1.5.0 ?s
Message-ID:	<20030710202153.GH9757@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 56 DOT 0307101508280 DOT 1846 AT eos>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.GSO.4.56.0307101508280.1846@eos>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.4.1i

On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 03:14:20PM -0500, Brian Ford wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 21:51:28 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
>> By testing.  It's save to use older DLLs if they don't expect any of
>> the changed datatypes as parameter or part of a parameter.  This
>> part of the application is of course not 64 clean.  However,  for
>> testing purposes I've build OpenSSH using the current OpenSSL and it
>> still worked fine.  Just as a prove of concept.
>>
>
>I tried this with some of our apps too and poof, seg fault.  I was just
>hoping someone had already figured out any easy test to see if a dll is
>effected.
>
>I think package maintainers are going to have a hard time figuring out
>when it is safe to recompile under 1.5.0.  And I bet there will be some
>circular dependencies.

What's hard?  They should be compiling now and releasing a test version,
now.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -