On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:18:22AM -0600, Jay Maynard wrote: >On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:32:46PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 08:48:03PM -0600, Jay Maynard wrote: >> >On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 09:31:43PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >> >>Remember that linking against some version of libcygwin.a doesn't mean >> >>you have to keep to the corresponding version of cygwin1.dll. Since >> >>it's loaded dynamically, all you need is for the functions you need to >> >>be present in the new DLL. This is generally the case. >> >Present *and* working the same or compatibly. Unfortunately, we've >> >found that that's not the case. >> I sincerely doubt that you've found a problem where something that was >> available in an older DLL is not available in a newer one. The only >> case I can think of where this happened is the dropping of //a for >> /cygdrive/a. > >There are numerous bug reports in the Hercules mailing list archives from >folks who have tried to run Hercules with a different version of >cygwin1.dll than the one Hercules was built against. In every case, >installing the version that Hercules was built against corrected the >problem. > >It may be intended to be upward compatible, but that's not our experience.
Ok. I'm not going to start scouring random other mailing lists for cygwin bug reports so I suppose this situation will continue In absence of any details, it's fruitless to carry this discussion any further. >>However, just in case you need to hear it, it is true that you have to >>provide the sources for the cygwin DLL if you want to distribute it. > >I have stopped distributing the Cygwin DLL entirely, since meeting this >requirement would impose larger requirements for disk space and/or time >than I can afford. (See how the GPL has improved sharing of programs! >Pfaugh.) Hmm. Looks like you just couldn't resist, huh? >Of the five DLLs that Hercules needs (cygwin1.dll, cygintl-2.dll, >cygiconv-2.dll, cygbz2-1.dll, and cygz.dll), only one is GPLed. This >imposes requirements on distribution of the complete package that do >not apply to the other platforms that Hercules is distributed for. >This is hardly going to make porting packages from Linux to Windows >easier. The source tarball for cygwin is 4.6M. I don't understand why this is a huge hardship but, frankly, I don't really care. >I've considered, and rejected, the idea of distributing my own >setup.ini file. The problem is that it seems to be as much of a moving >target as Cygwin itself. A setup.ini with just the cygwin DLL in it seems pretty simple. Btw, perhaps it is not your intention, but I catch a whiff of innuendo here makes me wonder if you're really asking for help or just here to make some statements. >I would suggest that, if it is desired to promote the development of >applications on the Cygwin platform, serious consideration be made to >making it as simple as possible to install only those portions of >Cygwin that the application requires. This means just the necessary >DLLs, without all of the interactive use baggage. Right now, that's >nearly impossible. Supporting other people's distributions is not a core focus of setup.exe. However, if this is important to you it should be pretty easy for you to submit patches to do what you want. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/