Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <20001016130707.19138.qmail@web109.yahoomail.com> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 06:07:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Earnie Boyd Subject: Re: RFC: linux compatibility To: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- DJ Delorie wrote: > > > My biggest concern is backwards compatibility. > > Is it worth Linux compatibility if it means "cygwin2.dll"? > > The timezone API is the biggest problem here, and the most visible. > Changing that might break compatibility all by itself. I haven't > checked into the whole story enough to know for sure. I agree > backward compatibility is an important goal. > Backward compatibility is important but not to the exclusion of improvement and progress. If backward compatibility becomes difficult to impossible to achieve in light of improvement and progress then yes it's time for a major version increment. Now what can be done in order to allow for a mix of major versions? Or is this just totally impossible? Cheers, ===== Earnie Boyd mailto:earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com --- --- --- Cygwin: POSIX on Windows --- --- Minimalist GNU for Windows --- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com