From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 56258 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2016 13:26:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 56177 invoked by uid 89); 30 Mar 2016 13:26:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*MI:sk:2016033, talk X-HELO: limerock02.mail.cornell.edu Received: from limerock02.mail.cornell.edu (HELO limerock02.mail.cornell.edu) (128.84.13.242) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:26:17 +0000 X-CornellRouted: This message has been Routed already. Received: from authusersmtp.mail.cornell.edu (granite4.serverfarm.cornell.edu [10.16.197.9]) by limerock02.mail.cornell.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4_cu) with ESMTP id u2UDQEkP018077 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:26:14 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.4] (mta-68-175-148-36.twcny.rr.com [68.175.148.36] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by authusersmtp.mail.cornell.edu (8.14.4/8.12.10) with ESMTP id u2UDQDSE003877 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:26:13 -0400 Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.5.0-0.8 To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com References: <56ED4764.4090007@cornell.edu> <56ED9459.8030101@cornell.edu> <20160320152625.GH11113@calimero.vinschen.de> <56EEDDEC.2070503@cornell.edu> <56EF06F2.3060907@cygwin.com> <56EFE385.70802@cornell.edu> <20160321130651.GA2796@calimero.vinschen.de> <56F0018C.9070505@cornell.edu> <20160322093057.GG7179@calimero.vinschen.de> <56F13B47.1040301@cornell.edu> <20160330125151.GK3793@calimero.vinschen.de> From: Ken Brown Message-ID: <56FBD3FA.80909@cornell.edu> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:55:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160330125151.GK3793@calimero.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-03/txt/msg00165.txt.bz2 On 3/30/2016 8:51 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Mar 22 08:32, Ken Brown wrote: >> On 3/22/2016 5:30 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> On Mar 21 10:13, Ken Brown wrote: >>>> On 3/21/2016 9:06 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>>> Hi Ken, >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 21 08:05, Ken Brown wrote: >>>>>> On 3/20/2016 4:24 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: >>>>>>> On 2016-03-20 12:29, Ken Brown wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Never mind. I just sent a report to bug-gnulib, so you can follow up >>>>>>>>>> there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2016-03/msg00054.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please check what I wrote in response to Paul and correct any mistakes I >>>>>>>> might have made. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Treating Cygwin just like glibc should generally be the solution. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is now fixed in upstream Gnulib. >>>>> >>>>> I just read the thread and it occured to me that this doesn't only >>>>> affect Cygwin, but all systems using newlib starting with the next >>>>> version of newlib. >>>>> >>>>> That reminds me that we have to bump newlib's version about now. >>>>> >>>>> Would you mind to follow up with that problem on bug-gnulib? The test >>>>> should probably look like this, more or less: >>>>> >>>>> #!((defined __GLIBC__ \ >>>>> || (defined __NEWLIB__ \ >>>>> && ((__NEWLIB__ == 2 && __NEWLIB_MINOR__ >= 4) || __NEWLIB__ >= 3))) \ >>>>> && !defined __UCLIBC__) >>>>> >>>>> As for the actual version number to test I have to talk to Jeff if we >>>>> can change the version to 2.4 or at least 2.3.1. 2.4 would simplify the >>>>> test in gnulib, otherwise the test gets a bit more complicated. >>>> >>>> Sure, I'll follow up on bug-gnulib as soon as you settle on the version >>>> number. >>> >>> Thank you. From the thread I take it the version number isn't that >>> important anymore? >> >> That's right. > > FYI, we bumped newlib to 2.4.0 anyway. OK, good to know. I've agreed to look through the gnulib sources for other places where 'defined __CYGWIN__' should be replaced by 'defined __NEWLIB__', so the version check may turn out to be needed. Ken