Re: RFC: linux compatibility

[Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd at yahoo dot com>]

--- DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:
> 
> > My biggest concern is backwards compatibility.
> > Is it worth Linux compatibility if it means "cygwin2.dll"?
> 
> The timezone API is the biggest problem here, and the most visible.
> Changing that might break compatibility all by itself.  I haven't
> checked into the whole story enough to know for sure.  I agree
> backward compatibility is an important goal.
> 

Backward compatibility is important but not to the exclusion of improvement and
progress.  If backward compatibility becomes difficult to impossible to achieve
in light of improvement and progress then yes it's time for a major version
increment.

Now what can be done in order to allow for a mix of major versions?  Or is this
just totally impossible?

Cheers,

=====
Earnie Boyd
mailto:earnie_boyd@yahoo.com

---         <http://earniesystems.safeshopper.com>         ---
--- Cygwin: POSIX on Windows <http://gw32.freeyellow.com/> ---
---   Minimalist GNU for Windows <http://www.mingw.org/>   ---

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com