> My biggest concern is backwards compatibility. > Is it worth Linux compatibility if it means "cygwin2.dll"? The timezone API is the biggest problem here, and the most visible. Changing that might break compatibility all by itself. I haven't checked into the whole story enough to know for sure. I agree backward compatibility is an important goal. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- RE: RFC: linux compatibility Gary R. Van Sickle
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility DJ Delorie
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility Chris Faylor
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility Corinna Vinschen
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility Chris Faylor
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility Gerrit Haase
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility Earnie Boyd
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility DJ Delorie
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility Earnie Boyd
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility Chris Faylor
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility DJ Delorie
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility Randall R Schulz
- RE: RFC: linux compatibility Robinow, David
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility Chris Faylor
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility Corinna Vinschen
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility Tom Hutto
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility Corinna Vinschen
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility Tom Hutto
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility Brian . P . Kasper
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility John . Velman
- Re: RFC: linux compatibility Earnie Boyd
