This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: 1.5.0 Test packages status (issue 2)
- From: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:33:43 +0200
- Subject: Re: 1.5.0 Test packages status (issue 2)
- References: <20030717071641.C6E9E6FE94@smtp.us2.messagingengine.com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 03:16:41AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Well, you can cross these off your list...
> bzip2 + libbz2_1
> gdbm + libgdbm-devel, libgdbm3
> Note that the following do not have any compiled portions, and are
> therefore "ready for 1.5.0"
> BTW, I think you *should* include the lower namespaces. Even though some
> will NOT be ported to 1.5.0. For instance, libbz2_0 contains
> /usr/bin/cygbz21.0.dll. But, cygbz21.0.dll is provided only for
> backwards compatibility for any programs that might be around to use it.
> However, there is no import library for it.
> Therefore, any NEWly compiled apps that link against -lbz2 will use
> /usr/lib/libbz2.dll.a which points to cygbz2_1.dll. Thus, I updated
> cygbz2_1.dll (libbz2_1 package) but not cygbz21.0.dll (libbz2_0 package).
> So, there are really five classes of packages:
> 1) already recompiled for 1.5.0
> 2) non-binary
> 3) binary, but not for new use (e.g. could be recompiled, but why?)
> 4) empty compatibility packages (newlib-man, texmf?)
> 5) need to be recompiled 1.5.0
> Of these 5 classes, only those packages in #5 need anything done.
> Everything else is fine.
> So, for instance,
> ncurses ncurses-demo libncurses7 libncurses-devel
> are all #1's. But
> libncurses6 libncurses5
> are both #3's.
> And, base-files is #2, while cvs is #5.
> Here's my first cut at a list. I know I've probably miscategorized some
> things, but I tried to err on the side of putting stuff into #5
> ("recompile me now!") -- but we want #5 to get real small :-)
I can help:
Move crypt to category 1 and regex to category 3.
Crypt is not using any call which would change due to 1.5.0. The package
would be 100% identical on a binary level.
Regex is the POSIX regex functionality which is only kept for backward
compatibility. The POSIX regex functionality is a Cygwin builtin since
roughly french revolution (well, 1.3.1 or so). I, for one, would remove
the regex package entirely from the distro. There's no package in the
distro using it and the period in which Cygwin had no POSIX regex and
the regex package provided a shared lib was pretty small.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:email@example.com
Red Hat, Inc.