> For code to be accepted in any FSF project, the author is required to > transfer the copyright of all changes to FSF. Exceptions > are allowed when the changes are very small and obvious. I actually > believe this patch would qualify, if it is introduced as, > > "cegcc builds code that runs on Windows CE, so I just made cegcc match > wherever cygwin or mingw would" -- which was actually how the patch > was written in the first place... Maybe someone can redo the patch > from scratch based on that info? There are things the patch didn't > do right, like the binaries detection, so it would be a good to > look over every hunk in it anyway.
Actually, with a friend, we have modified it so that it works very nicely, now. It seems that the patch will be in git for libtool 2.2.3. You can look at it in one of the libtool-patch ML thread. > Well, I didn't intend to push cegcc as an official platform into the > FSF world (contrary to mingw32ce), but if people want to... > >> Note: as the name of the binaries will change when the 4.3.0 reease of gcc >> will be correctly managed, maybe ti would be good to already support both >> names >> > > The canonical form to match our toolchains should be > arm*-*-mingw32ce* and arm*-*-cegcc*, which always covers the > old and the new forms. We use *-*-cegcc. Should I modify the patch so that the prefix if 'arm', and should I put a star at the end ? The star seems useless to me Vincent Torri ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ Cegcc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
