This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Question about XP support
- From: Thomas Wolff <towo at towo dot net>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 15:01:13 +0200
- Subject: Re: Question about XP support
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAK-n8j6=XNUF38bZfCuv2tvHVLnRAKwx8sJ=GzXM92-0dzpvfg at mail dot gmail dot com> <57449FA6 dot 8050704 at gmx dot de> <20160525100736 dot GB17601 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <CANnLRdiVTzJ_+VA=D7E=xmWwq0V+j0EvTxN2LNN=1CC65pg-+g at mail dot gmail dot com> <20160525145450 dot GA8416 at calimero dot vinschen dot de>
Am 25.05.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
On May 25 09:56, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 25 May 2016 at 06:07, Corinna Vinschen <email@example.com> wrote:
On May 24 20:38, Herbert Stocker wrote:
On 24.05.2016 18:44, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
I thought that support for Windows XP had been removed from Cygwin.
No, has not yet been removed.
And i'm sooo happy about this.
Uh oh, bad timing...
The next release 2.5.2 introduces the first non-XP compatible code.
It's in a seldom used corner of the code and it doesn't require
functions unavailable on XP, so it will very likely not break 99% of the
existing applications yet.
But the next release after will very likely break XP support entirely.
Would this be something to move to 3.x because there seems to be a lot
of people who come onto the list a lot. That way they know they can
use 2.5.1 and that is the last 'stable' release they need to 'fork'
from as say Cygnus-XP1 to keep going?
The XP-breaking release will certainly be a major release. I doubt it's
called 3.0, though. 2.6 is more likely.
May I propose 2.7, to suggest "needs Windows 7"? And 2.siX would be the
last to support Xp, to have some memorable acoustic connotation...:)
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprÃft.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple