Re: Question about XP support

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On May 29 15:01, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> Am 25.05.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
> > On May 25 09:56, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > > On 25 May 2016 at 06:07, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 24 20:38, Herbert Stocker wrote:
> > > > > On 24.05.2016 18:44, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
> > > > > > I thought that support for Windows XP had been removed from Cygwin.
> > > > > No, has not yet been removed.
> > > > > And i'm sooo happy about this.
> > > > Uh oh, bad timing...
> > > > 
> > > > The next release 2.5.2 introduces the first non-XP compatible code.
> > > > It's in a seldom used corner of the code and it doesn't require
> > > > functions unavailable on XP, so it will very likely not break 99% of the
> > > > existing applications yet.
> > > > 
> > > > But the next release after will very likely break XP support entirely.
> > > Would this be something to move to 3.x because there seems to be a lot
> > > of people who come onto the list a lot. That way they know they can
> > > use 2.5.1 and that is the last 'stable' release they need to 'fork'
> > > from as say Cygnus-XP1 to keep going?
> > The XP-breaking release will certainly be a major release.  I doubt it's
> > called 3.0, though.  2.6 is more likely.
> May I propose 2.7, to suggest "needs Windows 7"? And 2.siX would be the
> last to support Xp, to have some memorable acoustic connotation...:)

Nice idea, but... Windows 2003 and 64 bit XP is kernel 5.2 and Vista
(still supported afterwards) is the first 6er kernel.  2.5.2 -> 2.6
sounds good to me ;)


Corinna

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature