X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 11:08:56 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: cygwin-1.7.3-1
Message-ID: <20100406150856.GF16409@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <announce DOT 20100404152209 DOT GA31490 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>  <20100404212837 DOT GA13198 AT onderneming10 DOT xs4all DOT nl>  <4BB9944D DOT 5000005 AT gmail DOT com>  <20100405142008 DOT GA10449 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>  <Pine DOT NEB DOT 4 DOT 64 DOT 1004051023080 DOT 15933 AT panix1 DOT panix DOT com>  <op DOT vaqpdgru1e62zd AT balu DOT cs DOT uni-paderborn DOT de>  <20100406141326 DOT GC16409 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>  <4BBB4D14 DOT 7030708 AT bopp DOT net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4BBB4D14.7030708@bopp.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 10:02:44AM -0500, Jeremy Bopp wrote:
>People doing one or more of the above should hopefully be technical
>enough to understand the dangers and devise workarounds though.

I think humor really belongs on the cygwin-talk mailing list.

>To be honest, I'm not sure what can be gained from such gross
>identification of operating environments as would be provided by a
>potential /etc/cygwin-release file.  The most accurate way to check for
>functionality is to specifically test for it, a la autoconf.  Failing
>that, checking for specific package versions is pretty good depending on
>your needs.  I think you're asking for trouble if you try to get more
>general than that.

...but, seriously, thanks for the suggestion but it's hard to see how
the amount of work involved in implementing something like this would
justify the limited functionality of the feature.  Especially given the
pitfalls that you elucidated (and there are more than just those).

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple