Hello, perhaps, you may find interesting my updated packages of DJGPP tools for CYGWIN in my repository of packages.
https://github.com/carlo-bramini/packages-cygwin/tree/main/djgpp-binutils https://github.com/carlo-bramini/packages-cygwin/tree/main/djgpp-gcc https://github.com/carlo-bramini/packages-cygwin/tree/main/djgpp-runtime These are the latest version of the toolchain at this time. Sincerely, Carlo Bramini. Il giorno mer 27 ago 2025 alle ore 20:40 Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps <cygwin-apps@cygwin.com> ha scritto: > > On 25/08/2025 00:07, Brian Inglis via Cygwin-apps wrote: > > Only depend on each other: > > > > $ cygcheck-dep -cNqS djgpp-{gcc-core,binutils,runtime} > > djgpp-gcc-core: is recursively needed for ( djgpp-gcc-ada djgpp-gcc- > > fortran djgpp-gcc-g++ djgpp-gcc-objc djgpp-gcc-objc++ ) > > djgpp-binutils: is recursively needed for ( djgpp-gcc-ada djgpp-gcc- > > core djgpp-gcc-fortran djgpp-gcc-g++ djgpp-gcc-objc djgpp-gcc-objc++ ) > > djgpp-runtime: is recursively needed for ( djgpp-gcc-ada djgpp-gcc- > > core djgpp-gcc-fortran djgpp-gcc-g++ djgpp-gcc-objc djgpp-gcc-objc++ ) > > > > $ cygcheck -p 'djgpp-\(gcc-core\|binutils\|runtime\)' > > Found 7 matches for djgpp-\(gcc-core\|binutils\|runtime\) > > djgpp-binutils-2.25-2-src - djgpp-binutils-src: Binutils for DJGPP > > toolchain (source) > > djgpp-runtime-2.05-1-src - djgpp-runtime-src: DJGPP toolchain C runtime > > (source) > > djgpp-binutils-debuginfo-2.25-2 - djgpp-binutils-debuginfo: Debug info > > for djgpp-binutils > > djgpp-binutils-2.25-2 - djgpp-binutils: Binutils for DJGPP toolchain > > djgpp-gcc-core-5.3.0-1 - djgpp-gcc-core: GCC for DJGPP toolchain (C) > > djgpp-gcc-core-5.4.0-1 - djgpp-gcc-core: GCC for DJGPP toolchain (C) > > djgpp-runtime-2.05-1 - djgpp-runtime: DJGPP toolchain C runtime > > > > Current actual djgpp versions are 2.35.1 binutils and gcc 14.2; see: > > > > https://www.delorie.com/pub/djgpp/current/v2gnu/?C=M;O=D > > Yeah, I agreed last time [1] :S. > > > Feel free to vault the packages and remove it from the package list. > > (I try to remember to also check that the packaging git repo history is > up to date before doing those steps, as well) > > > More generally, perhaps we need to clarify the policy on removing > unmaintained packages from a vague "may be pulled" in [2]. > > How about: packages which are > * unmaintained > * and, out of date (version is less than current upstream version) > * and, aren't in the Base category or a dependency of something in the > Base category > * and, more than X years old > will be removed. > > > The report at [3] might help determine the impact of various values for X. > > > [1] https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-apps/2023-September/043147.html > [2] https://cygwin.com/packaging-contributors-guide.html > [3] https://cygwin.com/packages/reports/unmaintained.html
