X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" To: Subject: RE: Test: zip-2.31 and unzip-5.52 Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 23:57:08 -0500 Message-ID: <000401c673ee$31a20430$020aa8c0@DFW5RB41> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <4461538B.3010308@cwilson.fastmail.fm> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 > From: Charles Wilson > Charles D. Russell wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Do you really think that every cygwin package compiles > out-of-box with no changes? Not even close to true! I think you meant to say something to the effect of, "...every 'standard' source tarball compiles...". All Cygwin packages should of course compile OOB, or there'd be little reason to produce them. To the OP: "Old" != "Well Tested". You should be testing whatever program you're using to do backups, GNU, Cygwin, or otherwise. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- 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/