X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4460C4B4.1070002@bellsouth.net> Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 11:35:00 -0500 From: "Charles D. Russell" Reply-To: worwor AT bellsouth DOT net User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin cygwin Subject: Re:Test: zip-2.31 and unzip-5.52 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Charles Wilson wrote: Updated versions of these packages should hit the mirrors soon. Although they are minor releases, I'd like some testing by other-than-me, because these are basically new ports... Some of my old patches were re-implemented upsteam. There were other new changes affecting cygwin. AND some of my old patches had to be re-applied by hand. Ugly...I *think* everything is okay, but...some confirmation would be nice. Especially encrypted/password-protected round-trip tests, on DOS-mounts. _______________________________________________ I use zip and gzip for backup files, where a bug is unlikely to be detected before the problem is catastrophic. Thus I like to stick to old, well-tested versions, and am interested in understanding where problems might arise. I would have thought that the cygwin executable would be the same as that obtained by taking the standard source and running make. What is special about cygwin that requires patches? -- 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/