Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2000/05/16/20:45:58
Chris Faylor wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 05:16:42PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >> Assuming binutils/gcc accept my patches (or at least the maintainers of
> >> the cygwin ports of those packages), then I vote for option (d).
> >>
> >
> >It seems that the binutils portion of my desired patches were accepted
> >into the main binutils tree. However, this may or may not affect the
> >version distributed with cygwin.
> >
> >Now I'll try to get the [even more minor] patches to gcc accepted. :-)
>
> The only problem is that the current version of binutils + bfd is in a
> pretty uncertain state as far as PE for windows is concerned. I don't
> think it is close to being stable yet.
>
> We're using a known stable version of the tools that Mumit provided.
>
> Maybe he'll want to incorporate your changes into his stuff or allow you
> to provide a new version of binutils + gcc for latest.
I sortof remember that discussion -- someone was wondering why we're
"still" using 19990818. I was mostly hoping that *if* the binutils folks
accepted the patch, then Mumit would also accept the patch for "his"
version, so that whenever "binutils-19990818-2.tar.gz" was released, it
would have this patch. (I do NOT think this patch by itself is enough
reason to rush out a new binutils package right away, whether it's me or
Mumit or whomever).
--Chuck
- Raw text -