X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:00:47 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Call for testing Cygwin snapshot Message-ID: <20060428150047.GB27506@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <042720061327.212.4450C6A60001E0B3000000D422073007930A050E040D0C079D0A@comcast.net> <20060427152210.GB30293@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: 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 On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 10:22:58AM +0200, Danilo Turina wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:38:27PM +0200, Danilo Turina wrote: >>>No, sorry: I'm not using a snapshot. I thought you intended to say that >>>/bin/pwd would have failed also with the current version. >> >>Then please choose another thread to discuss any issues not involved with >>the Cygwin snapshot. > >No, there's no issue at all in the stable versione, only a little >misunderstading: I (wrongly) understood (from a previous message) that a >problem present in the stable version was also present in the snapshot. > >Verifying that the stable version (of my Cygwin installation) was immune >to that problem I notified this information in the aim of helping the >debugging of the snapshot. Nevertheless, we really are only interested in discussing the snapshot in this thread. If you or anyone haven't even *tried* it, then there is no reason to chime in here. 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/