Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 18:27:55 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: ask for delivering cygwin 1.1.8 with kde 1.1.2
Message-ID: <20010613182755.B11916@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <000901c0f3f4$413954e0$6e032bb7 AT BRAMSCHE> <011801c0f3f8$7f2034f0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010613121730 DOT B7791 AT redhat DOT com> <3B27A333 DOT 16DAB936 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20010613151508 DOT C9723 AT redhat DOT com> <3B27D887 DOT 4C61B86B AT yahoo DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <3B27D887.4C61B86B@yahoo.com>; from earnie_boyd@yahoo.com on Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 05:17:59PM -0400

On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 05:17:59PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 01:30:27PM -0400, Charles S. Wilson wrote:
>>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>The check_for_executable global is actually not used in 1.3.2.  This
>>>>was a 1.3.1 thing.  It should eventually disappear.  There is no need
>>>>for a patch.
>>>
>>>!@%!@#$
>>>
>>>So you're saying I need to produce an updated version of ncurses that
>>>is compiled under 1.3.2 (so that it won't look for
>>>check_for_executable), right?
>>
>>Binaries built with 1.3.1 will continue to work with 1.3.2 and beyond.
>>I haven't given up on the backwards compatibility committment.
>
>Is that executable binary compatibility as well as object binary
>compatibility?  Won't object libraries need to be rebuilt with the new
>version of the library?

Nothing needs to be recompiled.  The user should never notice the
change.

The only time this is an issue is if you are trying to use a 1.3.1
executable, object, or DLL with a < 1.3.1 cygwin1.dll or libcygwin.a.

cgf