This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: redistributing cygwin1.dll

Q: The Cygwin sources are already widely available.  Isn't it silly
  for me to distribute them?

I believe I have a simple answer that is, I believe correct and logical,
if not neccessarily all of the answer.

Suppose I have a product.  My product requires that my software 
link/utilize cygwin1.dll.  Now, I don't put out builds of my
software that often, say a couple of times a year.  Between
builds of my software, the source of cygwin1.dll may change a
couple of times.  The current version of my software uses cygwin1.dll
version 5.5.  The current version available from the Cygwin board is
5.7.  Someone comes along with a great idea to improve waynesadolt
(my package).  They make their change to the source, go get
cygwin1.dll version 5.7 source, and bandgo, it doesn't work.
Failing *miserably* to make a long story short, the requirement
for CM for cygwin1.dll (source too) resides with *me*, not Red Hat.
It is not up to Red Hat to keep track of the version of cygwin1.dll
that *my* package is linked against.  It is also not up to Cygwin
to keep every version of the cygwin1.dll just because I happen to think
version B19 was better than anything before or after.

Practical reason.

Personally, I prefer the simpler "Its in the contract that I 
agreed to by using cygwin1.dll in waynesadolt"

Yes I am sure there are many typo's and mis-spellings, I am, after all,
just a dumb'ol'country boy physicist.


Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]