Re: setup.exe considerations (was: Doubtful about unison)

2011-03-03 Thread Andrew Schulman
> I think it would be entirely reasonable to record the version you > built against as the minimum requirement, as you couldn't be expected > to test against older libraries as well. Wanting to use latest Unison > with an old Cygwin DLL is a case of having your cake and eating it, > it's just that

Re: setup.exe considerations (was: Doubtful about unison)

2011-03-02 Thread Andy Koppe
On 1 March 2011 14:04, Andrew Schulman wrote: >> >> Which is the problem: the unison command was compiled against a newer >> >> cygwin1.dll than yours. >> > >> > To be fair, setup.exe ought to be able to resolve or warn about such >> > version dependencies. Unfortunately the infrastructure for that

Re: setup.exe considerations (was: Doubtful about unison)

2011-03-01 Thread Andrew Schulman
> >> Which is the problem: the unison command was compiled against a newer > >> cygwin1.dll than yours. > > > > To be fair, setup.exe ought to be able to resolve or warn about such > > version dependencies. Unfortunately the infrastructure for that isn't > > in place, as it would require version r

Re: setup.exe considerations (was: Doubtful about unison)

2011-03-01 Thread Andy Koppe
On 1 March 2011 10:57, Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 01.03.2011 08:20, schrieb Andy Koppe: >> On 28 February 2011 19:52, Matthias Andree wrote: > >>> Which is the problem: the unison command was compiled against a newer >>> cygwin1.dll than yours. >> >> To be fair, setup.exe ought to be able to resol

setup.exe considerations (was: Doubtful about unison)

2011-03-01 Thread Matthias Andree
Am 01.03.2011 08:20, schrieb Andy Koppe: > On 28 February 2011 19:52, Matthias Andree wrote: >> Which is the problem: the unison command was compiled against a newer >> cygwin1.dll than yours. > > To be fair, setup.exe ought to be able to resolve or warn about such > version dependencies. Unfortu