X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <2bf229d30604110719s3715d63y1a0a01341b004521@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:19:09 -0400
From: "Chris Sutcliffe" <ir0nh34d AT gmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Cygwin backwards compatibility break with WinMain and GetCommandLine (was Re: WinMain() not getting cl...)
In-Reply-To: <20060411150058.GB14895@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20060404184447 DOT GA4824 AT tela DOT daveroth DOT dyndns DOT org> 	 <20060410013414 DOT GA20557 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> 	 <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0604100927270 DOT 20193 AT access1 DOT cims DOT nyu DOT edu> 	 <20060410173850 DOT GA19752 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> 	 <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0604101352460 DOT 20193 AT access1 DOT cims DOT nyu DOT edu> 	 <443AA212 DOT DF9AB154 AT dessent DOT net> 	 <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0604101447170 DOT 20193 AT access1 DOT cims DOT nyu DOT edu> 	 <20060411141921 DOT GA15620 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> 	 <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0604101550550 DOT 20193 AT access1 DOT cims DOT nyu DOT edu> 	 <20060411150058 DOT GB14895 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id k3BEJNHd008722

Just a thought....

Since this could potentially cause some misunderstanding, what about
bumping the Cygwin DLL version number to 1.6.0?  That way there could
be some sort of statement to the affect that apps requiring these
functions should be relinked with 1.6.0 when it's released.  It's
semantics I suppose, but I think it would be easier to differentiate
1.5.x series from 1.6.x as opposed to stating relinking may be
required against 1.5.20 and greater.

Chris

--
Chris Sutcliffe
http://ir0nh34d.blogspot.com
http://emergedesktop.org

--
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/