Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20020116191700.02296d48@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:28:15 -0500
To: Reini Urban <rurban AT x-ray DOT at>
From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject: Re: error trying to compile anything
Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To: <3C4617B1.7A7A5C31@x-ray.at>
References: <1011214219 DOT 8034 DOT ezmlm AT cygwin DOT com>
 <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20020116182829 DOT 02304590 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 07:15 PM 1/16/2002, Reini Urban wrote:
>Reini:
> > >what about "real" versioning of the cygwin.dll finally?
> > >perl did the half-baked thing (perl56.dll), though I heavily voted for
> > >the real thing that times.
> > >cygwin also (cygwin1.dll). why not cygwin-$(version).dll => cygwin-1.1.6.dll
> > >
> > >this is not FAT16 anymore. we have w95/98/ME and NT systems only.
> > >all support long filenames.
> > >duplicate dll's will be gone. microsoft dll hell will be past tense.
>  
>"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" schrieb:
> > The issue is not as simple as just DLL names.  Of course, if you want
> > to show us all your dandy solution, provide a patch and it will be
> > thoughtfully reviewed.
>
>is this list about politics (software design) or patches (software
>implementation) only?


If you have something to discuss regarding Cygwin, this is the list
for it.  I'm not suggesting that you were off-topic.  It's just we get
*many* "suggestions" here and very few willing to follow-up on them.  I'm
just trying to nudge you into "putting your money where your mouth is". ;-)


>of course dll names are just part of the game. but an important one, 
>which bit microsoft heavily AFAIK. 
>cygwin does support softlinks, so we should use them.
>the implementation is trivial, but there should be consense.


If you believe it's a trivial implementation, then do it and send a 
patch to cygwin-patches.  Just because you submit a patch doesn't mean 
it won't get discussed or reviewed.  A patch is a great way to indicate
exactly what you think should be done.  Otherwise, we're really just 
guessing at your specific ideas.  

I am in no way discouraging you in your pursuit of this issue but I 
would say that unless you have some understanding of the internals of 
Cygwin, I take your comment about the triviality of the change rather
lightly.  But, like I said, I know at least I have no idea how you plan
to implement this so if you do so and submit a patch, it allows us all 
to understand exactly what you have in mind.  

BTW, this issue has come up before and has been discussed, in case you
weren't aware and/or haven't seen it in the email archives.

Happy coding! :-)



Larry Hall                              lhall AT rfk DOT com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX


--
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/