X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<4460C4B4.1070002@bellsouth.net>
Date:	Tue, 09 May 2006 11:35:00 -0500
From:	"Charles D. Russell" <worwor AT bellsouth DOT net>
Reply-To:	worwor AT bellsouth DOT net
User-Agent:	Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308)
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re:Test: zip-2.31 and unzip-5.52
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

Charles Wilson wrote:

Updated versions of these packages should hit the mirrors soon. Although 
they are minor releases, I'd like some testing by other-than-me, because 
these are basically new ports...

Some of my old patches were re-implemented upsteam. There were other new 
changes affecting cygwin. AND some of my old patches had to be 
re-applied by hand. Ugly...I *think* everything is okay, but...some 
confirmation would be nice. Especially encrypted/password-protected 
round-trip tests, on DOS-mounts.
_______________________________________________

I use zip and gzip for backup files, where a bug is unlikely to be 
detected before the problem is catastrophic.  Thus I like to stick to 
old, well-tested versions, and am interested in understanding where 
problems might arise.  I would have thought that the cygwin executable 
would be the same as that obtained by taking the standard source and 
running make.  What is special about cygwin that requires patches? 


--
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 -