Re: [Cegcc-devel] _WIN32_WCE vs UNDER_CE

2010-12-27 Thread Pedro Alves
On Saturday 25 December 2010 14:14:10, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 12:46:08 + > Pedro Alves wrote: > > > On Friday 24 December 2010 22:22:56, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > Anyone can explain me meanings and differences between _WIN32_CE & > > > UNDER_CE ? U

Re: [Cegcc-devel] _WIN32_WCE vs UNDER_CE

2010-12-27 Thread Paul Sokolovsky
Hello, On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:32:54 + Pedro Alves wrote: > On Saturday 25 December 2010 14:14:10, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > > On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 12:46:08 + > > Pedro Alves wrote: > > > > > On Friday 24 December 2010 22:22:56, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > Anyon

Re: [Cegcc-devel] _WIN32_WCE vs UNDER_CE

2010-12-27 Thread Vincent Torri
Hey, On Mon, 27 Dec 2010, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > https://github.com/pfalcon/cegcc-w32api-try1/commit/be2a26d09e971f81dee8b4787e30ab06d9707eff shouldn't the critical section be removed if (L)GPL code is not allowed instead of replacing UNDER_CE by WIN32_WCE (first change) ? Vincent Torri --

Re: [Cegcc-devel] _WIN32_WCE vs UNDER_CE

2010-12-27 Thread Paul Sokolovsky
Hello, On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 18:16:48 +0100 (CET) Vincent Torri wrote: > > Hey, > > On Mon, 27 Dec 2010, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > > > https://github.com/pfalcon/cegcc-w32api-try1/commit/be2a26d09e971f81dee8b4787e30ab06d9707eff > > shouldn't the critical section be removed if (L)GPL code is not

Re: [Cegcc-devel] _WIN32_WCE vs UNDER_CE

2010-12-27 Thread Pedro Alves
On Monday 27 December 2010 18:19:59, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > Btw, while looking at vendor source may be considered questionable > practice, because vendor source access is granted by a license which > itself, and its licensing process (like changes evolution), don't > receive enough 3rd-party revi

Re: [Cegcc-devel] _WIN32_WCE vs UNDER_CE

2010-12-27 Thread Paul Sokolovsky
Hello, On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 18:26:53 + Pedro Alves wrote: > On Monday 27 December 2010 18:19:59, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > > Btw, while looking at vendor source may be considered questionable > > practice, because vendor source access is granted by a license which > > itself, and its licensing

Re: [Cegcc-devel] _WIN32_WCE vs UNDER_CE

2010-12-27 Thread Paul Sokolovsky
Hello, On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 20:55:49 +0200 Paul Sokolovsky wrote: [] > Everyone's mileage will vary, though. I'm not interested in > upstreaming (I know all this mumbo-jumbo oh so well), so mingw's > specific mileage won't hurt me much. That said, I hereby confirm that > I know of such issues and

[Cegcc-devel] [patch] Don't pass inst_* from w32api top Makefile down to sub-Makefile

2010-12-27 Thread Paul Sokolovsky
Pedro, While we're on conversation, I'd better ask you to review the following commit: https://github.com/pfalcon/cegcc-w32api-try1/commit/5c5e4e1e993443136ab24f721a1538d5ef4b64cb They issue, inst_* are subdirectories' Makefile vars, which compute their values themselves. They don't seem to be i

[Cegcc-devel] Upstreaming patches

2010-12-27 Thread Paul Sokolovsky
Hello, As if heavens select good time to add a bit of controversy, I've just got reply from upstream for the patch I just couldn't drop silently in my cleanup (and also it was kind of poke at them if they actually process patches): https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3139241