Web lists-archives.com

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST: Cygwin 3.0.0-0.2




On Jan 30 19:53, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 30 11:47, Brian Inglis wrote:
> > On 2019-01-30 10:31, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Jan 30 09:11, Brian Inglis wrote:
> > >> On 2019-01-30 07:03, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >>> I uploaded a new Cygwin test release 3.0.0-0.2
> > >>> It also changes the output of uname(2) for newly built applications.
> > >>> Applications built so far (that includes uname(1) from coreutils)
> > >>> will still print the old uname output.  The new format allows for longer
> > >>> strings.  Compare:
> > >>> Upcoming new uname content:
> > >>>   sysname:  CYGWIN_NT-10.0-17763   or  CYGWIN_NT-10.0-17763-WOW64
> > >>>   release:  3.0.0-335.x86_64       or  3.0.0-335.x86_64.snap
> > >>>   version:  2019-01-29 19:23 UTC   Build time in UTC
> > >> Re: "(*) It would really be nice not having to ask for these infos every time."
> > >> may want to append HKLM/SOFTWARE/Microsoft/Windows NT/CurrentVersion/UBR to
> > >> uname -s sysname to show the patch levels of installed builds, as there appears
> > >> to be substantial differences between editions and service models.
> > > Thanks for the info, but what to do with this? Is there a thorough
> > > description somewhere to allow deciphering what this means to us?
> > 
> > UBR Update Build Revision appears to be incremented for each patch set released
> > for the W10 feature set OS build, to complete a unique revision id, similar to
> > Cygwin 335 above.
> > Would save those of us who know to, having to also run and append the output of
> > 
> > $ cmd /c ver
> > 
> > Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.17134.523]
> > 
> > and save asking those who don't know that, in case the revision makes a difference.
> > Insider build feature sets bump the builds, and patch sets bump those revisions;
> > up to base releases with known feature sets, builds, and revisions; then patch
> > Tuesdays bump those revisions higher; so you can tell if installs are Insider,
> > base, or patched.
> 
> I'm not so sure this makes sense from a Cygwin perspective.  We're
> interested in the major releases introducing changing and/or new
> functionality.  The monthly updates don't do that so they have no
> meaning to us.
> 
> I just wonder if we should replace the build number with the ReleaseId
> (i.e. 17763 vs. 1809), but that excludes the fast lane updates from
> being visible.

On second thought there's also the format discrepancy.  Right now the
new uname crates the version string like "10.0-17763", but it might be
better to use "10.0.17763", replacing the dash with a dot, to follow
more closely the OS layout.  On third thought it seems prudent to
print either

  10.0-1809{-WOW64}

or

  10.0.17763.253{-WOW64}


Hmm.  The second form appears to make the most sense, actually.


Corinna


-- 
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature