Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:21:53 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: development under 1.5.0 ?s Message-ID: <20030710202153.GH9757@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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/