From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9008 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2017 19:57:03 -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 8996 invoked by uid 89); 22 Feb 2017 19:57:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:cygwin, headsup, proceeded, our X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 19:57:01 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4473B4E339 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 19:57:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.10.120.240] (ovpn-120-240.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.240] (may be forged)) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v1MJuxE2003258 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:57:00 -0500 Subject: Re: HEADSUP: gdbm ABI on x86 To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com References: From: Yaakov Selkowitz Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 19:57:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-02/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2 On 2016-10-10 14:55, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > After closely examining the API changes between 1.8.3 (ABI 3) and 1.9+ > (ABI 4) as well as how the library is typically used, I believe they are > sufficiently compatible on 32-bit architectures. Therefore, I have > proceeded to update the x86 gdbm to finally match the current upstream > (and our x86_64 package), but strongly recommend that packages which use > gdbm be rebuilt with libgdbm-devel-1.12-1 ASAP to be safe. > > Besides my own packages, the following are affected: > > nmh David Levine David, I believe that this is the last package yet to be rebuilt. Any chance of an update or rebuild? -- Yaakov