Re: [cygwin@cwilson.fastmail.fm: Re: 1.5.0 - showstopper?]

Re: [cygwin@cwilson.fastmail.fm: Re: 1.5.0 - showstopper?]

[Nick Clifton]

Hi Guys,

  I am applying a patch from Charles Wilson to pe-dll.c.  It has been
  discussed on the Cygwin list and although it is a workaround for a
  bug in cygwin, I think that it is useful that we have it in the
  sources.

Cheers
        Nick

> 2003-07-06  Charles Wilson  <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>
>
>	* ld/pe-dll.c: Add libcygwin to autofilter_liblist[]

        

Re: [cygwin@cwilson.fastmail.fm: Re: 1.5.0 - showstopper?]

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 04:33:53PM +0100, Nick Clifton wrote:
>I am applying a patch from Charles Wilson to pe-dll.c.  It has been
>discussed on the Cygwin list and although it is a workaround for a bug
>in cygwin, I think that it is useful that we have it in the sources.

I wouldn't characterize it as a bug in cygwin as much as a limitation
in windows.

cgf

Re: [cygwin@cwilson.fastmail.fm: Re: 1.5.0 - showstopper?]

[Nick Clifton]

Hi Chris,

> On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 04:33:53PM +0100, Nick Clifton wrote:
>>I am applying a patch from Charles Wilson to pe-dll.c.  It has been
>>discussed on the Cygwin list and although it is a workaround for a bug
>>in cygwin, I think that it is useful that we have it in the sources.
>
> I wouldn't characterize it as a bug in cygwin as much as a limitation
> in windows.

Oops sorry - I did not mean to denigrate cygwin.

Cheers
        Nick
        

Re: [abcd@xxx.yyy.zzz: Re: 1.5.0 - showstopper?]

[Charles Wilson]

Nick, please fix your mail software.  It's nice that you applied the 
patch, and all, and I realize that using a public mailing list, as I do 
often, puts one's email out there for the harvesters.

But at least the sourceware and gnu lists munge the addresses in the 
headers before archiving them:

# From: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
# To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
# Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, binutils at sources dot 
redhat dot com

This munging, according to a CNET field test, is surprisingly effective. 
  However, if you embed somebody's email address in the subject line it 
does not get munged.

I realize that any spammer could simply sign up to any mailing list to 
harvest a ton of valid addresses.  But please let's not make it too easy 
for the web spiders.

Thanks,
Chuck