X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:00:18 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: please test snapshots: we'd like to release cygwin version 1.20 Message-ID: <20060228050018.GA20653@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20060222010657 DOT GA5117 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <43FF1156 DOT 70704 AT byu DOT net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43FF1156.70704@byu.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: 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 On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 06:59:50AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: >According to Christopher Faylor on 2/21/2006 6:06 PM: >>Please observe usual bug reporting rules when reporting on any results >>from testing a snapshot. > >I'm seeing a few regressions on Win98 with 20060220, 20060223. They >are making it impossible for me to test CVS coreutils against the >latest snapshot on Win98. I haven't had time to further track down >where the regressions started, as I haven't otherwise used snapshots on >Win98 since 1.5.19 came out. The new directory handling code had a problem on win9x. It would cause random memory corruption. The new snapshot should work better. I was able to configure and build bash with the equivalent of this snashot. Does it work any better for you, Eric? 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/