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/
