X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD,FREEMAIL_FROM,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Olivier Lefevre <lefevrol AT yahoo DOT com>
Subject: Re: Doubtful about unison
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 14:46:59 +0100
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <iko64n$gdk$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <ikf9e3$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> <AANLkTikru7S2U8OsaQQoerwmruWVLcRc_ngDuNAiXcKB AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikru7S2U8OsaQQoerwmruWVLcRc_ngDuNAiXcKB@mail.gmail.com>
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 3/3/2011 8:06 AM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> 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.

Yes, you're right, I had it mostly backwards.

However in this case it seems the problem wasn't that Unison used new
features of Cygwin but that somehow the layout of the Cygwin DLL had
changed, in a way that broke applications. I am not much of a system-
level programmer but in higher-level languages you'd expect things to
keep working as long as functionality (i.e., method signatures) has not
changed or that the new functionality is a strict superset of the older
one. I am sure I am betraying a woeful ignorance of C-level programming,
of linkers etc (which maybe isn't such a wise thing to do in a public
forum; oh well) with this question but isn't there a way to pin down
entry points and suchlike to ensure better forward compatibility? Would
rebaseall have helped? This is just for my enlightenment: I am not
suggesting you twist yourself into pretzel shapes trying to ensure
stellar forward compatibility; I suspect Cygwin programming is tricky
enough as it is.

-- O.L.


--
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