X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:58:32 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Igor Peshansky <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To:	CARTER Alan <alan DOT carter AT eurocontrol DOT int>
cc:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Rebuilding Cygwin From Sources
In-Reply-To:	<40C729A4D292F64DA98AE016BBA9FFA7DA3D66@HHBRUE005.hq.corp.eurocontrol.int>
Message-ID:	<Pine.GSO.4.63.0607241352530.17655@access1.cims.nyu.edu>
References:	<40C729A4D292F64DA98AE016BBA9FFA7DA3D66 AT HHBRUE005 DOT hq DOT corp DOT eurocontrol DOT int>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, CARTER Alan wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Perhaps someone who knows can confirm that I've got this right:
>
> The executables in a Cygwin download can be much older than the download
> date, where "much" > 3 years.
>
> This suggests that executables are only rebuilt when their own sources
> change. Previously built executables can continue to be bundled into
> downloadable packages, even if the version of gcc in the download is
> much newer.
>
> Therefore, it is not reasonable to attempt to rebuild the executables in
> a download using the sources and gcc in the same download, and expect an
> *exact* reconstruction.
>
> (And that's before thinking about the compilation date strings that end
> up in the executables, or the CFLAGS arguments to the various configure
> scripts which also aren't necessarily obvious.)
>
> If I know an exact rebuild isn't possible, I won't try to achieve it
> before kludging the source :-)

An exact rebuild *is* possible, if you can reconstruct the exact
environment (package versions, variables, etc) the maintainer had on her
machine when she built the package.  Otherwise, it's not.

> ____
> This message and any files transmitted with it are legally privileged
> [snip annoying and unenforceable disclaimer]

You might want to lobby with your IT people to lose the disclaimer, which
is void anyway.

HTH,
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu | igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

--
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 -