[ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST: Cygwin 3.0.0-0.2

[Brian Inglis]

On 2019-01-30 13:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 30 20:01, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Jan 30 19:53, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Jan 30 11:47, Brian Inglis wrote:
>>>> On 2019-01-30 10:31, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 30 09:11, Brian Inglis wrote:
>>>>>> On 2019-01-30 07:03, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>>>> I uploaded a new Cygwin test release 3.0.0-0.2
>>>>>>> It also changes the output of uname(2) for newly built applications.
>>>>>>> Applications built so far (that includes uname(1) from coreutils)
>>>>>>> will still print the old uname output.  The new format allows for longer
>>>>>>> strings.  Compare:
>>>>>>> Upcoming new uname content:
>>>>>>>   sysname:  CYGWIN_NT-10.0-17763   or  CYGWIN_NT-10.0-17763-WOW64
>>>>>>>   release:  3.0.0-335.x86_64       or  3.0.0-335.x86_64.snap
>>>>>>>   version:  2019-01-29 19:23 UTC   Build time in UTC
>>>>>> Re: "(*) It would really be nice not having to ask for these
>>>>>> infos every time." may want to append
>>>>>> HKLM/SOFTWARE/Microsoft/Windows NT/CurrentVersion/UBR to uname
>>>>>> -s sysname to show the patch levels of installed builds, as
>>>>>> there appears to be substantial differences between editions
>>>>>> and service models.
>>>> [...]
>>>> $ cmd /c ver
>>>> Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.17134.523]
>>>> and save asking those who don't know that, in case the revision
>>>> makes a difference.  Insider build feature sets bump the builds,
>>>> and patch sets bump those revisions; up to base releases with
>>>> known feature sets, builds, and revisions; then patch Tuesdays
>>>> bump those revisions higher; so you can tell if installs are
>>>> Insider, base, or patched.
>>> I'm not so sure this makes sense from a Cygwin perspective.  We're
>>> interested in the major releases introducing changing and/or new
>>> functionality.  The monthly updates don't do that so they have no
>>> meaning to us.
>>> I just wonder if we should replace the build number with the ReleaseId
>>> (i.e. 17763 vs. 1809), but that excludes the fast lane updates from
>>> being visible.
>> On second thought there's also the format discrepancy.  Right now the
>> new uname crates the version string like "10.0-17763", but it might be
>> better to use "10.0.17763", replacing the dash with a dot, to follow
>> more closely the OS layout.  On third thought it seems prudent to
>> print either
>>   10.0-1809{-WOW64}
>> or
>>   10.0.17763.253{-WOW64}
>> Hmm.  The second form appears to make the most sense, actually.
> But then again, no OS before W10 printed that info, e.g.:
>   Microsoft Windows [Version 6.3.9600]
> We also have to make sure we're not breaking scripts, especially
> autoconf etc., so on forth thought, I'll rather stick to the current
> format.

I have zero problems with your previous considerations and decisions, but as
some new features now also require WSL installed to work, should there be some
such indication from uname e.g. +WSL where -WOW would appear?

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains
too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple