This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 11/19/2013 2:03 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Nov 19 13:21, Charles Wilson wrote:On 11/19/2013 12:13 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:Why do they have to make such a mess out of a simple function like GetVersionEx? It returns different OS version numbers based on the existence of a manifest in the executable. How dense is that? So we have thousands of executables, none of them has a 8.1 manifest. As a result, the uname() function returns OS versions 6.2 rather than 6.3. Aaaaaargh. In cygcheck I added a patch to check dwBuildNumber this morning. If it's >= 9200, it's 8.1/2012R2, otherwise 8/2012. But that doesn't fix the OS version number of course. Sigh. I'm going to tweak the OS version number and I'll do the same in Cygwin's uname function as well.Good grief. I suppose I need to add something similar to /usr/lib/csih/winProductName.exe...Looks like it, yes. What on earth were they thinking?
Who says they were thinking? ;-) -- Larry _____________________________________________________________________ A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? -- 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
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |