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:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=default; b=pcQFkSqNLK77KdnKkzDM+7lSS54C kaS9PSspOG3DuKv2siShcGUziWkGtRazYAnUFAJeGOL2yicj2GntxkinDLzqxlHT RQdRjshs0Z7/ZE6JtcMuVgP9Qc+5tTFNZGqVrSn7pN5Aq6HwHaj3kDAAivC0ug64 7V21zmaZdSxKbu0= 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:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id :references:to; s=default; bh=gJnhtvzbutSwyM4AAGbzjKj7Y7k=; b=ZL ojRvSLjq3Oj85u3dgY2MsrEEWpO1XYQnIndXutZa80bv/ozjMKSrMMDWNSbv0UhS UIOHkWVk30s1HTuNQztMZ9xo9plDjOiWYHU5KH36JMc3BQbiTHSfFavU3Vo8wrkU RUwgLbBJz4jKP0JGYb0IwngrPIV0CkoMYR53Xrwvs= 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 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: gproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=GpXRpCFC c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=x/h8IXy5FZdipniTS+KQtQ==:117 a=x/h8IXy5FZdipniTS+KQtQ==:17 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=z1iSbGl3AAAA:8 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=CnPQkyIfcMwA:10 a=HuP01ReZ-C4A:10 a=ff-B7xzCdYMA:10 a=g97Q1wQzAAAA:8 a=CCpqsmhAAAAA:8 a=zwXewK-sxHavOSGYyysA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=MdeQRWVX0hIA:10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Subject: Re: Question about old win32 api From: Vince Rice In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:50:22 -0500 Message-Id: References: <1442854377 DOT 11704 DOT 18 DOT camel AT cygwin DOT com> <1195136399 DOT 20150921222509 AT yandex DOT ru> <5600691F DOT 2090204 AT gmail DOT com> To: Cygwin Mailing List X-Identified-User: {3986:box867.bluehost.com:solidrr2:solidrocksystems.com} {sentby:smtp auth 99.106.192.34 authed with vrice AT solidrocksystems DOT com} X-IsSubscribed: yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id t8M0oht7028709 > On Sep 21, 2015, at 7:04 PM, Michael Enright wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Marco Atzeri wrote: >> >> the change in nc had nothing to do with cygwin >> change between 1.5 and 1.7 >> >> https://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin-announce/2012-05/msg00015.html >> > > Implying a tie between the nc version to the release of 1.7.0-0 was > wrong on my part. I am not wrong in this change to 'nc' did happen. > Because I was not tracking all things Cygwin all the time I didn't > know about it at first, and the people who had problems with it in my > world were those who had deployed new workstations with Cygwin 1.7 > while those who could just keep using Cygwin 1.5 did not have > problems. The point is that Cygwin doesn't stay the same all the time > in the ways that all users may care about. It did happen, and as Marco pointed out, it was _announced_ that it happened. If someone is using Cygwin, not following the mailing list (at the very least the announce list), and updating the software blindly, then there's not much else to be done. They're almost guaranteed to run into problems. This is no different than any other software on the planet — blindly updating Linux versions without knowing what’s in the update, or blindly updating Word without knowing what’s in the update, and so on, leads to the same thing — problems can, and will, happen. -- 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