On Jul 24 18:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Now that Microsoft has finally dropped support for Windows 98 and Me, > we're going to drop 9x support as well. > > What we're planning to do is this: > > The complete net distribution gets copied to a new place. This new > place is the distro kept for people running 9x. There is no further > development in this distribution. Maintainers may decide whether or not > they apply fixes to the packages in the 9x distro, or keep it up to date > at all. > > The "normal" net distribution will continue to be the normal distro. It > might work on 9x, but there's no guarantee at all that it will continue > to do so. > > The setup tool (hello setup developers?) should either be split into two > versions, one for 9x, one for NT. Or the setup tool should choose the > download path depending on the OS it's running on. Or something > completely different. > > Comments? Ideas?
Btw., it just occured to me that I'd rather get rid of the 9x stuff in the 1.7.0 DLL entirely. This would have visible advantages. - The code size of the DLL would shrink by a good amount. - The autoloading of functions could be reduced to the functions not available on all NT versions. This would reduce the autoload overhead by about 90%. - The code complexity would be reduced enormously by stripping off at least 50% of the `if (wincap.foo ()) tests. This would also have some positive effects on the performance. - Long 32K pathname support doesn't exist in 9x. So, when we switch over to using the unicode functions for pathnames, we would have a lot of avoidable hassle to keep 9x running at all. You're all convinced, right? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat