On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:43:30PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I used cygwin happily for very long time to compile > apache/php/postgresql and enjoy symlinks, and now I am cut-off from one > day to the next. The apache folks do not seem to care. The bug I > submitted is still without reply - > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38364 > > Apache 2.x/php 5.x do not want to play on cygwin so far. > > So I am three days in the dark and testing like hell vmware and minigw > to save my skin.
I don't understand why you haven't just reverted cygwin to the previous version (yes, including packages that depend on 1.5.19 - a brief perusal of the cygwin-announce archives from the release of 1.5.19 onward would show you which packages may fall into this category). The cygwin distribution provides access to previous versions *because* it is known that things break from time to time, whether due to a problem in or out of cygwin's control. Additionally, if cygwin is that mission critical to you, you need to have a testing phase between downloading new versions and putting them into live production, just like for any other mission critical software. > Seems this getline() breaks quite a lot and I am not quite sure this is > _very_ positive for cygwin. People just get left alone in the dark (no > everybody can debug and patch) and the pride of cygwin is somehow self > focused. I don't understand the "self focused" part. Re: alone in the dark, If your concerns aren't addressed in the next few months, I think you can make that claim. > I would expect such dramatic moves to be done with more care. The only care that really could be taken to prevent things like this is more users testing pre-release versions. Development snapshots of cygwin with getline() have been available for a long time now. Note that this isn't just addressed to you; if package maintainers heeded the "release coming soon, please test a snapshot" messages cgf sends out by testing that their packages build and run with the snapshot, there'd be less scope for problems. > Otherwise I could call cygwin nice, but not reliable. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
