Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 12:49:05AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> I was wondering what percentage of the repository is sufficiently
>> g-b-s-tastic or cygport-ified to be able to more-or-less automatedly
>> rebuild.
>
> What does "automatically rebuilt" mean? Are you sayin
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 12:49:05AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>I was wondering what percentage of the repository is sufficiently
>g-b-s-tastic or cygport-ified to be able to more-or-less automatedly
>rebuild.
What does "automatically rebuilt" mean? Are you saying that one person
would rebuild everyt
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Apr 3 11:30, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> If I rebuild gettext using gcc4 AND if the switch to gcc4 + shared
>> libgcc means that there is some sort of breakage (e.g. between a client
>> that uses the old, static runtime, and this DLL that uses the new,
>> dynamic runtime)
On Apr 3 13:54, Charles Wilson wrote:
> So, if I understand correctly, you're (gently) advocating
>
> #1) don't bump the ABI number of DLLs just because of cygwin-1.7/gcc4
> (of course, if there is some OTHER reason that the ABI changes, then the
> DLL number SHOULD be bumped).
> #2) hope that no
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> I'm not sure there is really such a interdependency. Shouldn't the
> static libgcc3 functions and the new shared gcc4 libgcc functions
> co-exist and not notice each other?
Unless they are supposed to both update the same data structure (e.g.
unwinding code) but have dif
On Apr 3 11:30, Charles Wilson wrote:
> If I rebuild gettext using gcc4 AND if the switch to gcc4 + shared
> libgcc means that there is some sort of breakage (e.g. between a client
> that uses the old, static runtime, and this DLL that uses the new,
> dynamic runtime) -- then EVERY package that re
cgf wrote:
> As one of the maintainers who falls in the sporadically active category
> I really don't relish the thought of a flag day version bump.
Me neither. I'm STILL struggling to work my way through recompiling
"my" packages for cygwin-1.7 *without* any attempts towards gcc4.
But the alte
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Many packages have no requirement for a flag day at all. What about
> packages like sed, which basically consist of a single application?
> What sense does it make to re-build it with gcc4?
See below.
> Not all maintainers are very active. That's no criticism, it's jus
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 05:02:24PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Apr 3 10:23, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> Yes, and we're (slowly) getting there. BTW, I do not believe the
>> following thread
>> "[RFC] ABI bump for building with gcc4 ?"
>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2009-03/msg00033.html
>
On Apr 3 10:23, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Yes, and we're (slowly) getting there. BTW, I do not believe the
> following thread
> "[RFC] ABI bump for building with gcc4 ?"
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2009-03/msg00033.html
> ever reached a resolution. Only you, Dave, and I participated...any
>
Charles Wilson wrote:
> But, IMO, it is not legitimate to try to de-facto override Dave's
> decision as the gcc maintainer, and MAKE gcc4 the default compiler via
Slow down there; Yaakov was not doing anything other than making a
reasonable proposal. Note the [RFC] in the subject!
cheers,
Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>Charles Wilson wrote:
>> gcc4 is still an *experimental* release:
>>
>> We shouldn't default to using it until the gcc maintainer is confident
>> enough in it to promote it officially. I know it's a bit of a
>> chicken/egg problem, but there you go.
>
> 1) A few maintaine
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Apr 3 08:44, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Hmm, I feel a third option coming on.
>>
>> I could do a special case hack, that works just for libstdc++, by putting
>> the objects for the overrideable functions into the import library archive
>> instead of the DLL. But then we'
On Mar 22 10:23, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> to download
> wget -r -np http://matzeri.altervista.org/cygwin-1.7/GraphicsMagick/
>
>
> ./GraphicsMagick-1.3.5-2-src.tar.bz2
> ./GraphicsMagick-1.3.5-2.tar.bz2
> ./index.html
> ./libGraphicsMagick-devel
> ./libGraphicsMagick-devel/index.html
> ./libGraphic
On Apr 3 08:44, Dave Korn wrote:
> Hmm, I feel a third option coming on.
>
> I could do a special case hack, that works just for libstdc++, by putting
> the objects for the overrideable functions into the import library archive
> instead of the DLL. But then we'd still have problems if a lib
Charles Wilson wrote:
> Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>> Are maintainers ready for cygport-0.9 (for 1.7 only) to default to gcc4?
>
> No.
>
> gcc4 is still an *experimental* release:
>
> "[ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: experimental package: gcc4-4.3.2-2"
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2009-03/msg00378.html
>
Andrew Punch wrote:
> So would you like me to do the tooltip, alignment and label - or would
> you prefer to do it?
Sorry if that wasn't clear; I already added it in the reformatted version of
your patch attached to my last message!
cheers,
DaveK
17 matches
Mail list logo
