On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, CARTER Alan wrote: > Hi, > > Perhaps someone who knows can confirm that I've got this right: > > The executables in a Cygwin download can be much older than the download > date, where "much" > 3 years. > > This suggests that executables are only rebuilt when their own sources > change. Previously built executables can continue to be bundled into > downloadable packages, even if the version of gcc in the download is > much newer. > > Therefore, it is not reasonable to attempt to rebuild the executables in > a download using the sources and gcc in the same download, and expect an > *exact* reconstruction. > > (And that's before thinking about the compilation date strings that end > up in the executables, or the CFLAGS arguments to the various configure > scripts which also aren't necessarily obvious.) > > If I know an exact rebuild isn't possible, I won't try to achieve it > before kludging the source :-)
An exact rebuild *is* possible, if you can reconstruct the exact environment (package versions, variables, etc) the maintainer had on her machine when she built the package. Otherwise, it's not. > ____ > This message and any files transmitted with it are legally privileged > [snip annoying and unenforceable disclaimer] You might want to lobby with your IT people to lose the disclaimer, which is void anyway. HTH, Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!) |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! "Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte." "But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac" -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/