This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: cygwin with sockscap32
- To: Robert Collins <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>
- Subject: Re: cygwin with sockscap32
- From: "Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>
- Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:37:15 -0500
- CC: madhu at quickmonkey dot com, cgf at redhat dot com, cygwin at cygwin dot com
- References: <200102222041.f1MKfKj29110@quickmonkey.com> <20010224164002.B6385@redhat.com> <200102242149.f1OLns802613@quickmonkey.com> <00b601c09eb4$e3cc1ac0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
Robert Collins wrote:
>
> Madhu,
> I have seen many occasions where software vendors have to release new
> versions of their product when an O/S patch occurs because _they broke
> the rules writing it_. Cygwin 1.1.x has the same ABI as cygwin b20. Most
> ports for B20 run just fine under the current cygwin because cygwin has
> been carefully kept backwarsds compatible.
Not entirely true. executables would work on both B20 and v1.1.x, but
objects and libraries had to be recompiled.
> Occams razor suggests that
> this is just another case of a corner cutting software vendor.
Yep -- they "make assumptions about the application and stack
implementations". It seems these assumptions were valid for B20
cygwin1.dll and B20 executables, but not for V1.1.x cygwin1.dll and
V1.1.x executables.
> The
> sockscap made use of an unsupported API or ABI feature, and as such is
> now broken.
Not really. sockscap doesn't link to cygwin, nor does it run under the
cygwin "platform". It modifies the behavior of the windows networking
stack -- in ways that are apparently incompatible with the cygwin-1.1.x
networking implementation.
>
> Of course, it might be a cygwin problem, in which case...
>
> YOU have the cygwin source. YOU are observing the problem in a closed
> source product, YOU need to liase with the software vendor.
Yep.
--Chuck
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple