On 26/03/2013 11:20, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On Mar 12 23:50, Dave Korn wrote: >> On 12/03/2013 22:15, Achim Gratz wrote: >>> Achim Gratz writes: >>>> Yaakov (Cygwin/X) writes: >>>> OK. I won't be able to run the tests for some packages this way, but it >>>> sounds like this should provide a workable solution for bootstrapping. >>>> I guess we will anyway have to re-compile all packages with gcc47 when >>>> it is ready for release, right? >>> Fascinatingly the tests for libmpc do run, although ldd gets confused >>> about what libraries it depends on and stops midway after outputting a >>> dependence on ?????. >>> >>> If the second gcc47 test release is made within this week I'd prefer >>> that to roll the packages, otherwise I'll set up a second installation >>> with the current release. I'll put all packages for the gcc47 branch >>> into [test], like gcc itself, is that correct? >> I haven't yet had an explicit go-ahead for that -2 release, but I've been >> rerolling it with the mpfr (shared libgcc) fix in order to be ready. Gonna >> check the same fix into upstream trunk tonight as well. > > How's the state of affairs?
I've realised that I should re-roll the release after updating to the latest cygport, as I don't yet have the version with the debuginfo changes, which I assume are desirable? If that's not so important, I could upload the existing build today and then re-roll a -3 with debuginfo, does anyone prefer it one way or the other? cheers, DaveK