From: Christopher Faylor <me@cgf.cx>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:51:28 GMT
Subject: Re: cygwin-latest: compile errors related to sockaddr_storage, dirent->d_type and dirent->d_ino
Message-ID: <20060119225128.GA8702@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
In-Reply-To: <20060119220843.GA3601@steel.home>

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 11:08:43PM +0100, Alex Riesen wrote:
>Christopher Faylor, Thu, Jan 19, 2006 19:31:43 +0100:
>>Hmm.  I thought we'd already dispelled the myth that cygwin is
>>unsupported in this very mailing list.  That is an odd impression given
>>the fact that you were complaining about behavior in a version of
>>cygwin which was released on Monday but, apology accepted.
>
>It was my first update since a long time (which BTW broke some programs
>like cp: they missed symbols in cygwin1.dll).

Detailed bug reports are always welcome on the cygwin mailing list:
cygwin at cygwin dot com .  I should point out that the existence of
bugs in a product does not indicate a lack of support of the product,
however.

>Maybe it'd be a good idea just to remove the definitions? Or, as
>__INSIDE_CYGWIN__ implies, move them into cygwin internal sources.
>Would be less confusion and no chance of someone defining one of the
>macros and getting a binary-incompatible object?

I sincerely doubt that anyone in this mailing list wants to get into a
discussion of cygwin design.  If you really want to discuss this, the
cygwin mailing list is a much better place for that.

cgf