This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Question about XP support
- From: Erik Soderquist <ErikSoderquist at gmail dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:22:16 -0400
- Subject: Re: Question about XP support
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAK-n8j6=XNUF38bZfCuv2tvHVLnRAKwx8sJ=GzXM92-0dzpvfg at mail dot gmail dot com> <57449FA6 dot 8050704 at gmx dot de> <20160525100736 dot GB17601 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <CANnLRdiVTzJ_+VA=D7E=xmWwq0V+j0EvTxN2LNN=1CC65pg-+g at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 25 May 2016 at 06:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Uh oh, bad timing...
> > The next release 2.5.2 introduces the first non-XP compatible code.
> > It's in a seldom used corner of the code and it doesn't require
> > functions unavailable on XP, so it will very likely not break 99% of the
> > existing applications yet.
> > But the next release after will very likely break XP support entirely.
> Would this be something to move to 3.x because there seems to be a lot
> of people who come onto the list a lot. That way they know they can
> use 2.5.1 and that is the last 'stable' release they need to 'fork'
> from as say Cygnus-XP1 to keep going?
I like this idea. I too have some isolated XP VM stations (mine
deliberately have zero network connection; "defender updates" do NOT
close security holes) that I currently plan to continue using until
I've learned enough programming myself to rewrite the windows only
utilities I have running in these stations. A version change from
from 2.x to 3.x at the official end of XP support would make it a very
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple