Re: Introducing slight binary incompatibility in newer executables?

[Chris Faylor <cgf at cygnus dot com>]

On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 08:37:43AM -0700, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>--- DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > IMHO, it is, any cygwin-app that is updated now, will have to have
>> > the updated cygwin1.dll.  What other changes are you thinking of?
>> 
>> We bump the middle number when the converse is true - when updating
>> the DLL means you *must* update the cygwin apps also.
>> 
>> All we're doing with this change is the same thing we've been doing
>> with all our other changes - adding functionality.  This means that
>> apps built for the new DLL won't work with older DLLs.
>> 
>> If we change or remove functionality, *then* we bump the middle
>> number, because apps build for the old DLL won't work with the new
>> DLL.  It's only when backward compatibility is broken do we have to
>> worry about migration.
>
>Ok.  But, IMO, we need a 1.1.4 before this modification so that we can take
>advantage of Corinna's patches for the speed issues of ntsec.  Then 1.1.5 will
>contain this modification.

The new DLL still handles old binaries so I don't think there is any reason to
hold off.

cgf