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 21:28:06 +0100 From: Elfyn McBratney X-X-Sender: elfyn@ellixia Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: development under 1.5.0 ?s In-Reply-To: <20030710202153.GH9757@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20030710202153.GH9757@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: > 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. Am I early? I'm doing mine now. :-) Elfyn -- Elfyn McBratney, EMCB http://www.emcb.co.uk elfyn@emcb.co.uk -- 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/