On Mon, 14 May 2018 10:31:18, cyg Simple wrote:
because they have merit? i said that already.
Since you stated in the form of a question, I can say for me, they do
not and based on the conversation of others, not for anyone but you.
let me rephrase: they have merit, full stop. Example 1, quoting myself:
yaakov said he would look into it after 2.5.1 came out
fact. here is the proof:
http://github.com/cygwinports/ruby/issues/1
Example 2, quoting myself again:
and its out:
fact. here is the proof:
http://github.com/ruby/ruby/releases/tag/v2_5_1
Example 3, quoting myself again:
and yaakov handles a massive amount of packages
fact. here is the proof:
http://cygwin.com/cygwin-pkg-maint
Example 4, quoting myself again:
cygwin *does* keep up to date with *some* important packages
fact. example is the Git package, which as of this writing is totally up to
date:
- http://cygwin.mirrors.hoobly.com/x86_64/release/git
- http://github.com/git/git/releases
Example 5, quoting myself again:
but not other important packages
fact. Current Cygwin Ruby is 2.3, which was released Dec 2015:
- http://cygwin.mirrors.hoobly.com/x86_64/release/ruby
- http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_%28programming_language%29#Ruby_2.3
A base package such as GCC requires time to release to an OS and Cygwin
is a emulation of an OS.
thats what test package is for
Releasing just because its fresh off the press isn't going to happen.
like me, i dont see you on this list:
http://cygwin.com/cygwin-pkg-maint
so i'd say you arent in a position to say that. test packages allow this to
happen if the maintainer chooses.
You have the opportunity to build it for yourself if you need it sooner but
then you are on your own.
I have mentioned twice already that i have done this:
- http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2018-05/msg00099.html
- http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2018-05/msg00082.html
Jon does not maintain all of the cross-compilers,
yes he does?
In the form of a question again, he definitely does a great job.
what criteria are you basing this comment on? i am not arguing with you on this
point per se. i have given concrete arguments here where release velocity could
be improved:
- http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2018-05/msg00099.html
- http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2018-05/msg00086.html
- http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2018-05/msg00082.html
- http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2018-05/msg00076.html
Why are you not "blessed" with your work? If you provide a service to
Cygwin then why aren't you in the cygwin-pkg-maint list? It's because
you haven't requested to maintain a package.
perhaps you should read the entire thread - i see you missed my other posts,
but it seems you missed Smoogen as well:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2018-05/msg00087.html
And then you offend the maintainers who provide their time to provide
you a service of distribution.
thats your opinion, and its not germane to this topic. the original topic is
requesting a ruby release, as it is out of date.
If you want to maintain or co-maintain a package then ask to see if the
maintainer needs help.
i dont want to do that, but i will volunteer if a spot opens.
You haven't done that, you DEMAND that a release be made. You might not see it
as a DEMAND but it is one.
sry, nop.
And you a free to do so. MinGW isn't GCC
yes it is. when you compile GCC, as i have done:
http://github.com/svnpenn/glade/blob/master/mingw-w64-x86-64/gcc
you choose a target. normally for this community that is "x86_64-pc-cygwin", but
in my case it is "x86_64-w64-mingw32". but you dont use some magical "MinGW"
repo, its the same GCC. granted, you do need to also install the target
"binutils", "headers" and "runtime", but the same source is used to build GCC
itself.
Maybe to you it doesn't seem like a crazy DEMAND but perhaps there are
reasons you're unaware of. Ask to help rather than DEMANDing.
again not a demand.
While your intention isn't one of insults those who maintain the
packages read them as such because you DEMAND more of their time with no
effort toward progressing Cygwin from yourself. That is the insult.
i am not demanding anything. i am stating what i think are reasonable
expectations for any software community. if they want to ignore them, thats
their business. ive already moved on, i build my own GCC, which i will use until
the official one drops. however note this: GCC 7 was released over a year ago:
http://gnu.mirrors.hoobly.com/gcc/gcc-7.1.0
if a test package was dropped at that time, we could have tested for 6 months,
then released a final build, and still been 6 months ahead of the current
schedule.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
