This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: strange source packaging?


On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 11:44:26AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>The argument for style 1 against style 2 is this:  Does anybody, other 
>than Chris, have ANY idea what the differences between gnu-gcc-2.95.3 
>and cygwin-gcc-2.95.3-5 are?  How many files are changed, and how 
>significantly?  What options were used to build the cygwin binary 
>package?  Before Chris reluctantly picked up the duty, did anyone other 
>than Mumit have a clue about the minutia of those differences (worse 
>yet, Mumit's version was a fork of the cgywin version, which itself was 
>a fork of the egcs version, which was a fork of the official gnu version...)

I know this is mainly a rhetorical question but actually, *I* don't have
any idea what all of the differences are.  I took over some patches from
Mumit that are for all intensive porpoises just black magic.

However, I have no problems generating the patch files, when required by
downloading the tar ball from gcc.gnu.org and then doing the diffs.

I have been trying to up-port my changes to the main trunk when possible
but I suspect that there are still a few tweaks in the cygwin release that
are not in gcc 3.1.

 From my point of view, when I download the source rpm for a package, I
always find it rather annoying that I have to apply patches by hand.  I'd
rather just have the latest, greatest version of things extracted into
a directory where I can type "configure/make" without any extra thinking
involved.

My 1c.  Now back to this resurrected discusion...

cgf


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]