Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3E454A65.5040602@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 08 Feb 2003 13:20:21 -0500
From:	Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com>
Reply-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language:	en-us, en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: So, *should* I go back to distributing the mingw/w32api sources
	in the cygwin source tarball?
References:	<20030208164444 DOT GA8989 AT redhat DOT com> <3E4538CA DOT 8000902 AT yahoo DOT com> <20030208171256 DOT GC9272 AT redhat DOT com>

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 12:05:14PM -0500, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> 
>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>>>The subject says it all.  If I don't distribute the mingw and w32api
>>>sources, I stand the chance of releasing a version of the sources that
>>>won't build until the next release of mingw or w32api.  I don't want to
>>>have to go through the effort of coordinating with Earnie every time I
>>>release cygwin so the alternative is to go back to including the mingw
>>>and w32api sources in the cygwin source tarball.
>>>
>>>I don't like the thought of duplication here but I guess I've finally
>>>grown weary of the bug reports from people who can't build from the
>>>sources available via tarball.
>>>
>>
>>I'm not going to say much about it other than, I empathize with you. 
>>Perhaps a symlink to the installed versions would do?
> 
> 
> I forgot to mention that I changed the top-level configury so that
> w32api is no longer absolutely required.  So, there is no need for
> a symlink anymore (I hope).  Or, rather, if there is, I'll fix it.
> 

That's a good thing, IMO.

> That doesn't stop the inevitable version skew, though, when something
> gets fixed in w32api and cygwin relies on it.
> 

I realized that shortly after sending my first reply.

I suppose a check for __MINGW32_VERSION as found in _mingw.h and 
__W32API_VERSION as found in w32api.h in the configury might be 
possible.  Then you could give an appropriate warning at configure time.

Earnie.

- Raw text -