EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

[Corinna Vinschen]

Now that Microsoft has finally dropped support for Windows 98 and Me,
we're going to drop 9x support as well.

What we're planning to do is this:

The complete net distribution gets copied to a new place.  This new
place is the distro kept for people running 9x.  There is no further
development in this distribution.  Maintainers may decide whether or not
they apply fixes to the packages in the 9x distro, or keep it up to date
at all.

The "normal" net distribution will continue to be the normal distro.  It
might work on 9x, but there's no guarantee at all that it will continue
to do so.

The setup tool (hello setup developers?) should either be split into two
versions, one for 9x, one for NT.  Or the setup tool should choose the
download path depending on the OS it's running on.  Or something
completely different.

Comments?  Ideas?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

RE: EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

[Dave Korn]

On 24 July 2006 17:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> Now that Microsoft has finally dropped support for Windows 98 and Me,
> we're going to drop 9x support as well.
> 
> What we're planning to do is this:
> 
> The complete net distribution gets copied to a new place.  This new
> place is the distro kept for people running 9x.  There is no further
> development in this distribution.  Maintainers may decide whether or not
> they apply fixes to the packages in the 9x distro, or keep it up to date
> at all.
> 
> The "normal" net distribution will continue to be the normal distro.  It
> might work on 9x, but there's no guarantee at all that it will continue
> to do so.
> 
> The setup tool (hello setup developers?) should either be split into two
> versions, one for 9x, one for NT.  Or the setup tool should choose the
> download path depending on the OS it's running on.  Or something
> completely different.
> 
> Comments?  Ideas?


  It might also be a reasonable idea to fork a win9x bugfixes branch off
current CVS, if there's the least likelihood that anyone will want to fix the
occasional bug in the 9x version of the dll.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:05:47PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 24 July 2006 17:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
>> Now that Microsoft has finally dropped support for Windows 98 and Me,
>> we're going to drop 9x support as well.
>> 
>> What we're planning to do is this:
>> 
>> The complete net distribution gets copied to a new place.  This new
>> place is the distro kept for people running 9x.  There is no further
>> development in this distribution.  Maintainers may decide whether or not
>> they apply fixes to the packages in the 9x distro, or keep it up to date
>> at all.
>> 
>> The "normal" net distribution will continue to be the normal distro.  It
>> might work on 9x, but there's no guarantee at all that it will continue
>> to do so.
>> 
>> The setup tool (hello setup developers?) should either be split into two
>> versions, one for 9x, one for NT.  Or the setup tool should choose the
>> download path depending on the OS it's running on.  Or something
>> completely different.
>> 
>> Comments?  Ideas?
>
>It might also be a reasonable idea to fork a win9x bugfixes branch off
>current CVS, if there's the least likelihood that anyone will want to
>fix the occasional bug in the 9x version of the dll.

We'll certainly cvs tag the point prior to any known 9x breakage so this
should be possible.

cgf

Re: EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 24 18:05, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 24 July 2006 17:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 
> > Now that Microsoft has finally dropped support for Windows 98 and Me,
> > we're going to drop 9x support as well.
> > 
> > What we're planning to do is this:
> > 
> > The complete net distribution gets copied to a new place.  This new
> > place is the distro kept for people running 9x.  There is no further
> > development in this distribution.  Maintainers may decide whether or not
> > they apply fixes to the packages in the 9x distro, or keep it up to date
> > at all.
> > 
> > The "normal" net distribution will continue to be the normal distro.  It
> > might work on 9x, but there's no guarantee at all that it will continue
> > to do so.
> > 
> > The setup tool (hello setup developers?) should either be split into two
> > versions, one for 9x, one for NT.  Or the setup tool should choose the
> > download path depending on the OS it's running on.  Or something
> > completely different.
> > 
> > Comments?  Ideas?
> 
> 
>   It might also be a reasonable idea to fork a win9x bugfixes branch off
> current CVS, if there's the least likelihood that anyone will want to fix the
> occasional bug in the 9x version of the dll.

Yep, right.  I forgot to mention this.  I have serious doubts, but a
dead branch is better than no branch.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

[Kazuhiro Fujieda]

>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:59:26 +0200
>>> Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> said:

> Comments?  Ideas?

Could you consider bumping up the minor version of Cygwin DLL
from 5 to 6? The next version will have significant incompatibility
at the user's point of view. I think it should be clearly shown by
the version number.
____
  | AIST      Kazuhiro Fujieda <fujieda@jaist.ac.jp>
  | HOKURIKU  School of Information Science
o_/ 1990      Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology

Re: EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 28 16:54, Kazuhiro Fujieda wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:59:26 +0200
> >>> Corinna Vinschen <XXXXXXX-XXXXXX@XXXXXX.XXXX said:

http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTNQREAIYR
(yeah, it happens, I know ;-))

> > Comments?  Ideas?
> 
> Could you consider bumping up the minor version of Cygwin DLL
> from 5 to 6? The next version will have significant incompatibility
> at the user's point of view. I think it should be clearly shown by
> the version number.

Did you build from CVS lately? ;-)


Corinna


P.S: Even numbered releases are used at Red Hat internally so we're
     bumping to the next odd number.

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

[Kazuhiro Fujieda]

>>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:06:34 +0200
>>> Corinna Vinschen said:

> Did you build from CVS lately? ;-)

No. I'm sorry. I get 1.7.0 now.
____
  | AIST      Kazuhiro Fujieda <fujieda@jaist.ac.jp>
  | HOKURIKU  School of Information Science
o_/ 1990      Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology

Re: EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

[Warren Young]

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Now that Microsoft has finally dropped support for Windows 98 and Me,
> we're going to drop 9x support as well.

http://www.rosemaryclooney.com/LyricPages/dingdongwitchisdead.html

Re: EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 24 18:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Now that Microsoft has finally dropped support for Windows 98 and Me,
> we're going to drop 9x support as well.
> 
> What we're planning to do is this:
> 
> The complete net distribution gets copied to a new place.  This new
> place is the distro kept for people running 9x.  There is no further
> development in this distribution.  Maintainers may decide whether or not
> they apply fixes to the packages in the 9x distro, or keep it up to date
> at all.
> 
> The "normal" net distribution will continue to be the normal distro.  It
> might work on 9x, but there's no guarantee at all that it will continue
> to do so.
> 
> The setup tool (hello setup developers?) should either be split into two
> versions, one for 9x, one for NT.  Or the setup tool should choose the
> download path depending on the OS it's running on.  Or something
> completely different.
> 
> Comments?  Ideas?

Btw., it just occured to me that I'd rather get rid of the 9x stuff in
the 1.7.0 DLL entirely.  This would have visible advantages.

- The code size of the DLL would shrink by a good amount.

- The autoloading of functions could be reduced to the functions not
  available on all NT versions.  This would reduce the autoload overhead
  by about 90%.

- The code complexity would be reduced enormously by stripping off at
  least 50% of the `if (wincap.foo ()) tests.  This would also have
  some positive effects on the performance.

- Long 32K pathname support doesn't exist in 9x.  So, when we switch
  over to using the unicode functions for pathnames, we would have a
  lot of avoidable hassle to keep 9x running at all.

You're all convinced, right?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

RE: EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

[Dave Korn]

On 07 February 2007 10:18, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> On Jul 24 18:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> Btw., it just occured to me that I'd rather get rid of the 9x stuff in
> the 1.7.0 DLL entirely.  This would have visible advantages.
> 
> - The code size of the DLL would shrink by a good amount.
> 
> - The autoloading of functions could be reduced to the functions not
>   available on all NT versions.  This would reduce the autoload overhead
>   by about 90%.
> 
> - The code complexity would be reduced enormously by stripping off at
>   least 50% of the `if (wincap.foo ()) tests.  This would also have
>   some positive effects on the performance.
> 
> - Long 32K pathname support doesn't exist in 9x.  So, when we switch
>   over to using the unicode functions for pathnames, we would have a
>   lot of avoidable hassle to keep 9x running at all.
> 
> You're all convinced, right?

  Hell yeah!  Let's have a mass-delete-fest!

  We should tag the repository beforehand, just in case some retro-enthusiasts
feel like keeping 1.5.x alive on a branch and keeping it hobbling along on '9x
for a while longer.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Feb  7 10:45, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 07 February 2007 10:18, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Btw., it just occured to me that I'd rather get rid of the 9x stuff in
> > the 1.7.0 DLL entirely.  This would have visible advantages.
> > 
> > - The code size of the DLL would shrink by a good amount.
> > 
> > - The autoloading of functions could be reduced to the functions not
> >   available on all NT versions.  This would reduce the autoload overhead
> >   by about 90%.
> > 
> > - The code complexity would be reduced enormously by stripping off at
> >   least 50% of the `if (wincap.foo ()) tests.  This would also have
> >   some positive effects on the performance.
> > 
> > - Long 32K pathname support doesn't exist in 9x.  So, when we switch
> >   over to using the unicode functions for pathnames, we would have a
> >   lot of avoidable hassle to keep 9x running at all.
> > 
> > You're all convinced, right?
> 
>   Hell yeah!  Let's have a mass-delete-fest!
> 
>   We should tag the repository beforehand, just in case some retro-enthusiasts
> feel like keeping 1.5.x alive on a branch and keeping it hobbling along on '9x
> for a while longer.

We have a branch for 1.5.x already for >9 months.  Guess where the
recent 1.5.x releases came from? ;)


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

RE: EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

[Dave Korn]

On 07 February 2007 10:58, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> 
> We have a branch for 1.5.x already for >9 months.  Guess where the
> recent 1.5.x releases came from? ;)

  Ah, didn't notice.

  Is 1.7 going to branch off 1.5, or are 1.5 changes going to be merged back
to mainline and 1.7 series kick off from there?


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Feb  7 11:03, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 07 February 2007 10:58, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > We have a branch for 1.5.x already for >9 months.  Guess where the
> > recent 1.5.x releases came from? ;)
> 
>   Ah, didn't notice.
> 
>   Is 1.7 going to branch off 1.5, or are 1.5 changes going to be merged back
> to mainline and 1.7 series kick off from there?

Er... Dave?  Hello?  There's a 1.5 *branch*.  Where, do you guess, is
1.7 developed in?  The trunk maybe?

The trunk is 1.7 since 2006-07-25.  Didn't you notice that the snapshots
already diverge from 1.5 for a couple of months?  I actually thought
you're one of the guys following the development...


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

RE: EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

[Dave Korn]

On 07 February 2007 11:14, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> On Feb  7 11:03, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 07 February 2007 10:58, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> We have a branch for 1.5.x already for >9 months.  Guess where the
>>> recent 1.5.x releases came from? ;)
>> 
>>   Ah, didn't notice.
>> 
>>   Is 1.7 going to branch off 1.5, or are 1.5 changes going to be merged
>> back to mainline and 1.7 series kick off from there?
> 
> Er... Dave?  Hello?  There's a 1.5 *branch*.  Where, do you guess, is
> 1.7 developed in?  The trunk maybe?
> 
> The trunk is 1.7 since 2006-07-25.  Didn't you notice that the snapshots
> already diverge from 1.5 for a couple of months?  I actually thought
> you're one of the guys following the development...


  Not for the last few months, no - CES took up >100% of my time (spare and
otherwise) for quite a long while this time round.... 

  I'll go read some change logs.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....