Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID:	<006901c12070$e8e8ee50$d2823bd5@dmitry>
From:	"Dmitry Timoshkov" <dmitry AT baikal DOT ru>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<20010807163431 DOT A31008 AT redhat DOT com> <011f01c11fd7$a18a9c50$cd823bd5 AT dmitry> <20010808111705 DOT E4406 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject:	Re: binutils is no longer experimental
Date:	Thu, 9 Aug 2001 09:15:30 +0800
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200

"Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com> wrote:

> >> I got enough reports from trustworthy people to move the binutils cygwin
> >> release from "experimental" to "current".
> >
> >Hello Christopher.
> >
> >On 18 May 2001 I had sent the attached patch to a binutils mailing list.
> >DJ Delorie had approved my patch, but it never was commited. I suspect
> >that it wasn't because I had made diff against binutils-20010425-2 provided
> >by Cygwin and that diff could not be cleanly applied to a raw binutils cvs.
> 
> If DJ approved the patch then he should commit it.
> 
> I would just ping DJ.

Thanks for your answer. Could you please answer one more: why binutils
provided by Cygwin distribution is so different from the ordinal one?
Is it planned to do a merge?

Thanks.
--
Dmitry.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -