New release time?

Christopher Faylor
Thu Apr 10 22:15:00 GMT 2003

On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 05:19:39PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 10:04:06PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 03:50:23PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>> > > My question really was: will similar problems happen in other cases,
>> > > such as e.g. zlib?
>> > > It seems that a user doing 3) above will endup with an application
>> > > using 64 bit offsets calling functions in (old) cygz.dll that still
>> > > expects 32 bits.
>> >
>> > Hmm.  Sounds bad.  Yes, that might happen.
>> Does that support my call for urgency to rebuild packages ASAP?
>Yes. It looks like packages like zlib that offer a dll and depend on
>the new types should be rebuilt and uploaded at the same time as cygwin 
>However it's not clear how many packages are in that case. I did a fgrep
>of off_t that only (?) came up with regex.h and zconf.h 
>I saw nothing (?) for for uid_t.
>Aren't packages that only have .exe safe (or is it as long as they don't 
>call cygwin_internal ?).
>Can we put cygwin in the exp category for a week or two, while packages
>are rebuilt, tested and uploaded into exp? 

I guess we could make the experimental available for people to use and
then have all of the package maintainers upload an experimental version.
Then once we're settled, we switch everything at once.  That might work.


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list