Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:17:18 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: How do I get an old version of cygwin?
Message-ID: <20050119161718.GB29149@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <41EC4604 DOT 5010908 AT singlestep DOT com> <1106037711 DOT 7522 DOT 26 DOT camel AT localhost> <20050118145111 DOT GA27316 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <1106149817 DOT 7522 DOT 41 DOT camel AT localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1106149817.7522.41.camel@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 03:50:17PM +0000, Adrian Cox wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 09:51 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 08:41:51AM +0000, Adrian Cox wrote:
>
>> >Have you considered building a custom version of the latest Cygwin, and
>> >putting it on their box in a different directory?  Trying to solve this
>> >sort of problem is unpopular on this list, but my initial research
>> >suggests that changing the values of CYGWIN_VERSION_DLL_IDENTIFIER and
>> >CYGWIN_INFO_CYGNUS_REGISTRY_NAME should do the job.
>> 
>> You really shouldn't be giving out advice to people without
>> understanding what the problems are.  You don't even know why this
>> person needs to hve an older version of cygwin.  Immediately jumping to
>> the conclusion that they just need to mess with things in the source and
>> recompile is not good advice.
>
>Because it is extremely common to distribute an application along with
>the correct version of the support packages.

AFAICT, The OP merely wanted to be able to produce a binary that they knew
would work on their customer's system.

AFAIK, all that is required to do that is to link against the older DLL
or an older import library.

I'm only drawing assumptions from the limited information in the
messages but this certainly once again illustrates the point about
people who think they need multiple versions of cygwin on the system.

>If I distribute a Windows application which uses perl, I want to
>distribute a tested working perl interpreter in the same package.  If I
>distribute a Windows application using Cygwin, I want to distribute a
>tested working Cygwin DLL in the same package.  Disk space and
>bandwidth are so cheap they're almost free.  Testing takes time.

So, to extend this reasoning, if you want to release a linux application
which uses perl, you must either release the kernel along with your
application or you have to stop people from using your application on
linux kernels on which you haven't tested.

>These people already have one tested and working application on an old
>version of Cygwin.  Now they want to run a second application validated
>against a newer version of Cygwin.  As far as I can see Cygwin has been
>deliberately designed to make this difficult.

As far as I can tell, you are purposely avoiding educating yourself on
this subject so that you can continue to make broad statements like
this.

I guess it is getting close to the time to *plonk*.

cgf

--
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/