On Nov 19 14:20, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> On 11/19/2013 2:03 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Nov 19 13:21, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >>On 11/19/2013 12:13 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>>Why do they have to make such a mess out of a simple function like
> >>>GetVersionEx?  It returns different OS version numbers based on the
> >>>existence of a manifest in the executable.  How dense is that?
> >>>
> >>>So we have thousands of executables, none of them has a 8.1 manifest.
> >>>As a result, the uname() function returns OS versions 6.2 rather than
> >>>6.3.  Aaaaaargh.
> >>>
> >>>In cygcheck I added a patch to check dwBuildNumber this morning.  If
> >>>it's >= 9200, it's 8.1/2012R2, otherwise 8/2012.  But that doesn't
> >>>fix the OS version number of course.  Sigh.
> >>>
> >>>I'm going to tweak the OS version number and I'll do the same in
> >>>Cygwin's uname function as well.
> >>
> >>Good grief. I suppose I need to add something similar to
> >>/usr/lib/csih/winProductName.exe...
> >
> >Looks like it, yes.  What on earth were they thinking?
> 
> Who says they were thinking? ;-)

Point.

I found what happened:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dn302074%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

Given that we are unable to provide and change manifests on the fly for
thousands of executables, we will have to hack our way along in future
because all upcoming versions of Windows will return a wrong OS version
number.

Why isn't there at least an additional non-manifest way to claim
compatibility with the current OS? :(


Corinna

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