Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/07/06/12:35:06
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 09:33:24AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Jeremy White wrote:
>>Forgive me if I have missed something blindingly obvious, but I cannot
>>find a CVS tag to correlate to the 1.3.22-1 release of cygwin1.dll. I
>>see one for cygwin-1-3-19-1 on some winsup/cygwin files.
>>
>>I was hoping to check out a 'stable' release from CVS, and I'd
>>appreciate any guidance on this (or the paper bag, if I've missed the
>>obvious).
>
>There are no such tags.
>
>The reason for this is that cygwin builds newlib into the DLL, so to
>create a fully reproducable build, you would need to tag newlib as
>well. Apparently the newlib folks don't really like cygwin tags in
>their part of the tree.
? I'm sure that the newlib folks wouldn't mind if I tagged their
sources. They are generally pretty reasonable people. Although, since
I'm one of the newlib maintainers, I guess maybe some people would
find that questionable.
However, it is not just the newlib directory that needs to be tagged.
libiberty also would require it. And, the include directory, and
arguably, even bfd.
I could do all of this but I don't see any need to pollute the cvs
repositories of all of these projects. If you want to build cygwin for
the purpose of actually helping the project, then you should be building
from cvs. Providing patches against older versions will just be
problematic.
Otherwise, just follow the instructions in the FAQ for rebuilding from
source tar balls. The cygwin mailing list archives should also be
instructive.
--
Please use the resources at cygwin.com rather than sending personal email.
Special for spam email harvesters: send email to aaaspam AT sourceware DOT org
and be permanently blocked from mailing lists at sources.redhat.com
--
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/
- Raw text -