Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:35:59 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Multiple cygwin installs: I have to do it, but how?
Message-ID: <20011011153559.H1846@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <3BC5B226 DOT 104 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3BC5C7B1 DOT BF4ABFB7 AT cportcorp DOT com> <3BC5D8CE DOT 7040301 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3BC5D8CE.7040301@ece.gatech.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Peter Buckley wrote:
>
>>I hope that Bob can read this message to the list, 
>>if not, Chuck I hope will forward it to him.
>>
>>My company ships some cygwin stuff, and most recently 
>>we shipped a product containing some mixed executables and 
>>cygwin1.dll and cygwinb19.dll. It didn't have any problems 
>>because the names of the dlls were different. 
>
>
>sort of.  The mount table entries are stored under the Cygnus Solutions 
>key in the registry -- and both DLL's will look there for the 
>information. So if the two "installations" require different mount 
>tables, you could see conflict -- except that B19 stored the mount table 
>undera slightly different subkey than 1.3.3 uses.  So, you might *not* 
>see a conflict.  However, this is a non-solution: relying on a quirk in 
>registry names that just-so-happens to distinguish between B19 and 1.3.3 
>is not a long term solution.
>
>OTOH, should we really bother to support old dists?

Absolutely not.

>Isn't that their responsibility?

Absolutely, yes.

>(BTW, I assume there ARE distributing the source code for their cygwin
>and linked applications, right?

I certainly hope so.  Possibly they've bought a license from Red Hat or
Cygnus but I don't recall ever hearing that they had.

Can anyone confirm if this is the case or if I need to contact some
Red Hat lawyers?

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/