X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:to:from:subject:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=ls108 RKs+DpUKXhYfceyZ2vgOTo21bdAl8jLzH6+VRuFaNb/p+O9nn7OOVdNJdxtiTIWc x5SxxUVZte4caAV/GhYc0md41mvFgqqrykDgE2zMVYnGR2Zchabvlc3lvY5O+IRy 8PSThDGusUBfHlGbyInuPJQFl+etXmQUTCBEwU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:to:from:subject:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type; s=default; bh=jA6Qegquxrv 42HaucIzJeCV3aWI=; b=iT0sQbkM3W3oCYl1JRPdXGvBlxbtF84RIxI8bKdzYos ObKFDeWQbj17iMiJXyeUeIgnaoQcm2tc5DgluCb1Ibz6dcIBqDPzOC+3G7mxLwNk OK00FYV2YMa6JmHPet/gPfFUZJ3tByKY4Dp4ITx6m2LgHeZmvcRhIH+dSe2aN43A = Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130731132448.03acaec8@binnacle.cx> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:26:13 -0400 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: starlight DOT 2013z3 AT binnacle DOT cx Subject: Re: possible bug in 1.7.22-1 core DLLs In-Reply-To: <20130731172147.GA1692@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> References: <6 DOT 2 DOT 5 DOT 6 DOT 2 DOT 20130731121524 DOT 03acf020 AT binnacle DOT cx> <20130731172147 DOT GA1692 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Score: -1 () ALL_TRUSTED Received-SPF: pass (mx.binnacle.cx: 172.29.87.10 is whitelisted by SPF-milter whitelist entry) Well I uncovered a serious regression and expressed a willingness to track down the cause. However your nasty reply and bad attitude assures that I will defintiely not help now. At 01:21 PM 7/31/2013 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >You are right in assuming that newer DLLs should >work with older binaries but no one is willing to >do tech support or debugging based on vague >problem reports. So, it isn't clear exactly what >you're expecting. If you think someone is going >to take a "1.7.16" installation and then drop a >newer cygwin1.dll into it to debug your problem >then you are likely going to be disappointed - >especially if you can't even be bothered to >subscribe to the mailing list. -- 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