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 Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 11:53:29 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Please try the latest snapshot -- it is close to cygwin 1.5.6 Message-ID: <20031226165329.GA13619@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20031223222816 DOT GA23935 AT redhat DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-IsSubscribed: yes Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 05:37:36PM +0100, Philippe Torche wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>The subject says it all. >> >>I'm hoping to release cygwin 1.5.6 shortly after Christmas. > >I've tested it (CVS version 12:35 GMT + 1) on our 4 Xeon on W2003S and >unfortunately my previous test case (run_t.sh and t.sh) always fails. Let me be extremely clear about this again: I don't have a 4 Xeon processor running W2003S. I will not be able to test this and I, frankly, don't care much about this corner case -- especially if it is not a regression from previous releases. So, if you were just reporting this as a data point, then thanks. If you are expecting me to do something about it, then, you will, unfortunately, be disappointed. >The test suite runs soon happily (except now 3 cases) with my Athlon on >WinXP, and I'm preparing to run it tomorrow on our 4 Xeon. I think I will have to give a gold star to the person who figures out why those three cases are "failing". It really isn't that hard. -- 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/