Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.5.0-0.8

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Mar 21 10:13, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 3/21/2016 9:06 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >Hi Ken,
> >
> >On Mar 21 08:05, Ken Brown wrote:
> >>On 3/20/2016 4:24 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> >>>On 2016-03-20 12:29, Ken Brown wrote:
> >>>>>>Never mind.  I just sent a report to bug-gnulib, so you can follow up
> >>>>>>there.
> >>>>
> >>>>http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2016-03/msg00054.html
> >>>>
> >>>>Please check what I wrote in response to Paul and correct any mistakes I
> >>>>might have made.
> >>>
> >>>Treating Cygwin just like glibc should generally be the solution.
> >>
> >>The problem is now fixed in upstream Gnulib.
> >
> >I just read the thread and it occured to me that this doesn't only
> >affect Cygwin, but all systems using newlib starting with the next
> >version of newlib.
> >
> >That reminds me that we have to bump newlib's version about now.
> >
> >Would you mind to follow up with that problem on bug-gnulib?  The test
> >should probably look like this, more or less:
> >
> >#!((defined __GLIBC__ \
> >     || (defined __NEWLIB__ \
> >     && ((__NEWLIB__ == 2 && __NEWLIB_MINOR__ >= 4) || __NEWLIB__ >= 3))) \
> >  && !defined __UCLIBC__)
> >
> >As for the actual version number to test I have to talk to Jeff if we
> >can change the version to 2.4 or at least 2.3.1.  2.4 would simplify the
> >test in gnulib, otherwise the test gets a bit more complicated.
> 
> Sure, I'll follow up on bug-gnulib as soon as you settle on the version
> number.

Thank you.  From the thread I take it the version number isn't that
important anymore?


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature