This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: New release time?
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 05:19:39PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 10:04:06PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 03:50:23PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >> > > My question really was: will similar problems happen in other cases,
> >> > > such as e.g. zlib?
> >> > > It seems that a user doing 3) above will endup with an application
> >> > > using 64 bit offsets calling functions in (old) cygz.dll that still
> >> > > expects 32 bits.
> >> >
> >> > Hmm. Sounds bad. Yes, that might happen.
> >>
> >> Does that support my call for urgency to rebuild packages ASAP?
> >
> >Yes. It looks like packages like zlib that offer a dll and depend on
> >the new types should be rebuilt and uploaded at the same time as cygwin
> >
> >However it's not clear how many packages are in that case. I did a fgrep
> >of off_t that only (?) came up with regex.h and zconf.h
> >I saw nothing (?) for for uid_t.
> >
> >Aren't packages that only have .exe safe (or is it as long as they don't
> >call cygwin_internal ?).
> >
> >Can we put cygwin in the exp category for a week or two, while packages
> >are rebuilt, tested and uploaded into exp?
>
> I guess we could make the experimental available for people to use and
> then have all of the package maintainers upload an experimental version.
> Then once we're settled, we switch everything at once. That might work.
Right, I think we need that. Suppose I maintain a package that uses zlib.
I can recompile it as soon as I have the new cygwin. However I can't fully
test it until I also have the new zlib dll.
Pierre