Tue Feb 27 14:03:00 GMT 2007
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 05:35:26AM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> *cough* cygwin v2 *cough*
>So, when the major version number increases, we'd now have cygwin2.dll,
>which would have a different shared memory region ID, mount table
>registry key, etc... and so we'd have both cygwin1.dll and cygwin2.dll
>present in /usr/bin, until such time as all apps linked against
>cygwin1.dll got rebuilt from source (i.e. forever, or at least a
>reaaaaly long time)? Would cygwin v1.x apps recognise v2.x apps and
>play nicely and vice versa? And this would be a chance to drop a lot of
>cruft that is currently there just for backwards compatibility?
>I'm just trying to get an idea of what the logistics of such a bump
I raise the issue of cygwin2.dll with Corinna on a regular basis and
we eventually convince each other that it would be too much work.
What I envision is a backwards-incompatible DLL which would require
recompilation of applications. It might be possible to write a
cygwin1.dll wrapper which called cygwin2.dll to avoid the need to
recompile absolutely everything - at least initially.
Off the top of my head things I'd like to fix would be:
user_data passing from program to cygwin
I'm sure there are more...
More information about the Cygwin-developers