Hi,
I'd been under the impression that I'd need to create a separate
mintty package for cygwin-1.7, but was glad to find that actually
0.3.5-1 is already there. Many packages do have 1.7-specific versions
though, so my question is, under what sorts of circumstances does that
become necessary?
On Mar 13 06:34, Andy Koppe wrote:
Hi,
I'd been under the impression that I'd need to create a separate
mintty package for cygwin-1.7, but was glad to find that actually
0.3.5-1 is already there. Many packages do have 1.7-specific versions
though, so my question is, under what sorts of
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 13 06:34, Andy Koppe wrote:
Hi,
I'd been under the impression that I'd need to create a separate
mintty package for cygwin-1.7, but was glad to find that actually
0.3.5-1 is already there. Many packages do have 1.7-specific versions
though, so my question is,
Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
Some maintainers
That would be me.
have mentioned that they plan to ABI-number-bump their
libraries when they rebuild them with gcc-4.3. Frankly, I think this is
a bad idea, and I'll try my best to explain why. In no particular order:
Everybody is entitled to
Contrary to my earlier reply, I'm now coming round to the opposite point of
view. If it's a choice of flag day vs. version bumps and an incremental
process, I think the pain will be much less if we choose the latter option.
Charles Wilson wrote:
3) -shared-libgcc vs. -static-libgcc. I was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Charles Wilson wrote:
True. Until all -- or almost all -- of the distro is *slowly* rebuilt
using gcc4 -shared-libgcc. The difference is, it CAN be slow, and
needn't happen all at once on some flag day.
I'm arguing that perhaps it should, just
