Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Spam-Filter: check_local AT alphatech DOT com 4.4(020923:1754) http://digitalanswers.org/ To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: package _version_ check References: Reply-To: sds AT gnu DOT org X-Attribution: Sam X-Disclaimer: You should not expect anyone to agree with me. Mail-Copies-To: never From: Sam Steingold In-Reply-To: Date: 09 Sep 2003 16:37:41 -0400 Message-ID: Lines: 23 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >* Igor Pechtchanski [2003-09-09 15:25:51 -0400]: > > On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Sam Steingold wrote: > > > shouldn't setup.exe refuse to install 1.5.3 unless all packages that > > use 1.3 are also upgraded? like RPM and apt-get at al do?! > > I think you got it backwards. Cygwin 1.5 will run pre-1.5 programs > with no problems. It's when you get a program compiled for 1.5 with > an older DLL (e.g., 1.3.22) that you have a problem. huh?! now I am thoroughly confused. thanks. :-) I thought that binary (in)compatibility went both ways: if you build against the old dll, you cannot run against the new one. PS please do not CC me. I read all lists to which I post. -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k It's not just a language, it's an adventure. Common Lisp. -- 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/