Re: Pulling the switch on GCC4.

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

Btw., Dave,

On Sep 28 10:51, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Sep 27 21:48, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > Dave Korn wrote:
> > 
> > >   As things stand I've only rolled one set of packages, so it will throw the
> > > switch for both.  I guess that could be a bit inconvenient for 1.5 users who
> > > will have to add -static if they want full C++ compliance.  I could change it
> > > to only throw the switch for 1.7 if people think that's desirable, this is
> > > just the sort of thing I wanted to get people's feelings on.
> > 
> > At this point, as
> > 
> > 1) it seems that the Smart Folks have figured out how to address the
> > last known release blocker for 1.7 (the whole UTF filename thing), so
> > 1.7.1 should be "relatively" imminent -- my personal supposition,
> > carries no official weight, yadda yadda yadda
> > 
> > 2) your effort is at a premium
> > 
> > 3) Those who disagree with "throwing the switch" for 1.5 can easily
> > switch back using the alternatives system
> > 
> > I say keep on as you have planned: one package to rule them all, and
> > throw the switch for both.
> 
> Agreed on all points.  Except you are shying at another gold star in
> which case you should keep gcc-3 the default, Dave.

Does the new gcc version now set the TSAWARE flag by default?  That
would be quite important, so that at leats new applications run on a
Terminal Server right from the start.  Especially bash is an important
candidate.


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat