This is the mail archive of the cygwin 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: Trouble with running cygwin dll on Vortex86MX+ CPU

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 09:28:29PM -0400, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>On 4/7/2014 6:41 PM, Peter A. Castro wrote:
>> Geetings, Larry,
>> Some comments about this (sorry if this is off-tipic):
>Since you're providing this Cygwin service, I don't consider information
>about this service to be off-topic.  And, of course, if *I* don't consider
>it off-topic, it certainly can't be. ;-)
>> 1) There used to be a directory to pull the snapshots, but that's been
>>     removed or otherwise made inaccessable a while ago, so archving the
>>     snapshots has been impossible for me.
>Understood.  Yeah, access to "snapshots", among others, is turned off to
>robots.  I'd say check with Chris on this one to see if there could be
>some accommodation here.

The only thing that has changed in the last year is that the snapshots
are now in an architecture specific directory.  I'm not aware of
sourceware offering any method for accessing snapshots other than the
snapshot web page.

>> 2) Packaging changes of setup.exe have made extracting the version string
>>     impossible, save for actually running setup, which isn't something I'm
>>     going to do on a daily basis.  If there is a method of extracting this
>>     info from it, please do tell me how.
>I'm assuming it used to just be in the RC file in the past.  Didn't look
>in the history to trace it back.  But now it is generated and put in
>setup_version.c as a global constant setup_version.

setup.exe is packed with upx.  If you want to see the version string I
suppose you could unpack it with upx.

>> 3) The format of setup.ini hasn't changed in any significant way that
>>     prevents newer versions of setup from working with older versions of
>>     the achive, and vise-versa, so it hasn't been worth doing regular
>>     achives of setup.  Mostly I tell people to grab the lastest setup and
>>     try it first.
>Yes, generally, this should work and I agree that this is the first,
>easiest answer if there is no corresponding setup for a particular date.  I
>was under the impression that you were also pulling setups with each
>release.  That, of course, is no guarantee of direct correspondence
>either but it's close.  No matter.

It is entirely possible that a new field could show up in setup.ini
eventually but I don't see the syntax changing so it's likely, but
not guaranteed, that new setup.exe's will work with old setup.ini's.

>>     The exceptions are for the Legacy release (hard coded for -legacy)
>>     as well as the preview (-2) release, but that, again, was most about
>>     the name of the setup file and the initial release path names.
>>     So, there really hasn't been much incentive to archive setup.
>>     That being said, I do have a Legacy and a -2 setup versions available
>>     for those that need them, as well as some other older releases of
>>     setup, just in case.
>Yes, I noticed.  That's a "Good Thing"(tm).  :-)
>A: Yes.
> > Q: Are you sure?
> >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
>Problem reports:
>Unsubscribe info:

Problem reports:
Unsubscribe info:

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