Dropping official 9x support

Christopher Faylor me@cgf.cx
Wed Jul 12 17:22:00 GMT 2006

On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 09:49:21AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> Somebody (as in "somebody else", not cgf or me) will look into any
>> upcoming 9x problems and will try to fix them.  cgf and me will not
>> grant any concessions to 9x when implementing new code, we will not make
>> any tests on 9x and we will not at all try to find the reason why the
>> code doesn't work on it.  Maybe for lots of money, but not just so.
>> Any volunteer or anybody with a better idea?  If not, 1.5.21 will be
>> the last release which is supposed to work on 9x.  Serves it right.
>So in essence this boils down to "it should probably continue to work OK
>(in the short term at least) but if a change breaks it we won't fix it
>unless someone debugs and submits a patch that passes muster"?  That's
>certainly more than fine by me, I just hope you have your asbestos suits
>prepared for the deluge of "me have 486 run windows 95, me want cygwin".

The thing that prompted this is that right now 1.5.22 is broken on
Windows 98.

One thing always bothers me about dropping 9x support - the breakage that
is uncovered there also reflects real problems or stupid assumptions about
the way windows work.  So as much as I detest keeping Cygwin working on
Windows 9x, it does have some benefits for NT+ class systems.  I'm just
not sure if the benefits outweigh the problems however.


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list