This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: development under 1.5.0 ?s
- From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:37:49 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: development under 1.5.0 ?s
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 03:14:20PM -0500, Brian Ford wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 21:51:28 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> By testing. It's save to use older DLLs if they don't expect any of
> >> the changed datatypes as parameter or part of a parameter. This
> >> part of the application is of course not 64 clean. However, for
> >> testing purposes I've build OpenSSH using the current OpenSSL and it
> >> still worked fine. Just as a prove of concept.
> >I tried this with some of our apps too and poof, seg fault. I was just
> >hoping someone had already figured out any easy test to see if a dll is
> >I think package maintainers are going to have a hard time figuring out
> >when it is safe to recompile under 1.5.0. And I bet there will be some
> >circular dependencies.
> What's hard? They should be compiling now and releasing a test version, now.
FWIW, I can see Brian's point. If two mutually-dependent packages are
maintained by different people, the recompilation (or, rather, the
subsequent testing) will have to be coordinated (or both will have to
recompile to test). Perhaps this now belongs on cygwin-apps?
|\ _,,,---,,_ email@example.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ firstname.lastname@example.org
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster." -- Patrick Naughton
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html