On Mar 28 13:25, Dave Korn wrote: > 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?
Just run setup ;) > 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? I'd be fine with a -2 without debuginfo for now. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
