X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0	tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ikivlj$got$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <ikf9e3$ub2$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org>	<ikfe1p$f00$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org>	<ikgf2f$vtm$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org>	<fggnm61cfbkp0fm6jm0lvrns74bk56bls4 AT 4ax DOT com>	<ikgjlh$tk7$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org>	<aamnm61uhbmgbrq007c6oag7cd7n9hpdt2 AT 4ax DOT com>	<ikgt6p$ubn$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org>	<4D6BFD09 DOT 8020600 AT gmx DOT de>	<AANLkTimi6R8MFSH63quHW3EqV4z5ucwtgNEPmCWWfjjc AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>	<ikivlj$got$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 07:06:45 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTikru7S2U8OsaQQoerwmruWVLcRc_ngDuNAiXcKB@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Doubtful about unison
From: Andy Koppe <andy DOT koppe AT gmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
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

On 1 March 2011 14:25, Olivier Lefevre wrote:
> On 3/1/2011 8:20 AM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>
>> To be fair, setup.exe ought to be able to resolve or warn about such
>> version dependencies.
>
> That's what I was tempted to say. For the record this is what I did:
> 1) select Keep
> 2) manually pick unison
> 3) accept the dialog about dependencies
> Yet AFAICT only Unison was installed.

Yeah, the Keep button should come with a at-your-own-risk warning really.


> This is complicated by the fact that I did not directly install but
> did a first download-without-installation and then installed from
> local bundles. The above is what happened at download time; I am no
> longer sure what I did at installation time but most likely the same.
>
> In a slightly different line of thought, isn't it rather brittle of
> Cygwin that a minor upgrade (I was already at some 1.7 version)
> breaks applications? Think, a contrario, of how you can still run
> ancient Windows apps on XP.

The problem you had was a case of broken forward compatibility,
whereas your Windows example is talking about backward compatibility.
The Cygwin devs do try hard to maintain the latter, so even really old
packages in the distribution continue to run with the latest DLL. What
isn't guaranteed to work is running packages built on the latest DLL
with an old DLL, because that's likely to depend on new features in
the latest DLL.

Andy

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple