Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 12:59:59 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Release 1.3.7? Message-ID: <20011227175959.GA25036@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i Any reason not to release 1.3.7? It seems like Robert's recent pthread changes would be welcome. There will be a challenge in that the libregex package is no longer needed and should be obsoleted. I've also beem mucking with the version detection for shared objects in a probably fruitless attempt to allow different versions of cygwin to communicate with each other (which is a big problem, apparently, internally to Red Hat) or at least to detect when there is no hope of communicating. The version mismatch warning is now several sentences long. If things go according to the usual plan, someone will find the sentences "confusing" and will complain bitterly that it took them several weeks to figure out that having multiple versions of cygwin on their system is not a good thing. All that aside, however, is anyone planning anything that would justify holding off a release? Actually, now that I think of it, there is one thing. I was actually investigating the *utent* functions myself when Ralf Habacker played the standard "Why aren't these symbols included???" riff in the cygwin mailing list. It would probably be useful to include them but I haven't investigated what this would entail in newlib. Anyone interested in investigating this? cgf