New release time?

Corinna Vinschen
Thu Apr 10 09:45:00 GMT 2003

On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 01:32:32AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 01:28:39AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >Should we unleash 1.3.23 on the world?  This would be the first 64
> >bit capable version of cygwin, right?  Are we fully ready for that?
> To answer my question, one thing I'd really like is 64 bit inodes.
> We don't have that now, right?

No.  We could add them but that requires another newlib change due to
the definition of ino_t.  Shall I?

AFAICS we're not fully ready for 1.3.23 even w/o 64bit inodes.

There's that strange core dump of the latest ctags version (5.5) which
only happens in the CVS version of Cygwin, not in 1.3.22, so we introduced
a bug somewhere.  When the error happens, the stack is totally corrupted.
I'm trying to track that down.

Another problem is the 32/64 capability itself.  While no package
maintainer is *forced* to rebuild his/her packages, that ideally happens
quick.  Especially the packages handling users and groups are pretty
important and that's a *lot* of packages.

As soon as we release 1.3.23, we should go ahead and rebuild all packages
under control of at least people on this list within a week.  On
cygwin-apps we should encourage all maintainers to rebuild as quick as
possible and we should set a date (+6 months or so) after which all
non-rebuilt packages are removed from the distro.  This has the
interesting side effect that we can see which packages have lost their
maintainers ;-)

Bottom line:  I think introducing 32/64 needs a bit of preparation.
And btw., shouldn't that be 1.5.0?


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                      
Red Hat, Inc.

More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list