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
Date:	Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:13:47 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: A quick note on <newlib.h>
Message-ID:	<20020829021347.GA11426@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<000201c24e27$ffa0bb10$6132bc3e AT BABEL> <20020828003122 DOT GL16631 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20020828003122.GL16631@redhat.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 08:31:22PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>This is one of the reasons that I'm getting sick of our dependency on
>newlib.  I've asked that cygwin be taken into account when making
>changes like this but, the last I heard, the newlib guys were stalled
>trying to accommodate my request since the two year old gcc cross
>compiler that they insist on using is no longer able to build cygwin.

Actually, it's apparent that this isn't true and I am guilty of spreading
misinformation.  Sorry about that.

They actually did check cygwin.  They built it by running make from the
top level, though, and that would work since it adds the newlib build
directory to the include path.  So, the newlib guys are actually going
above and beyond when they make changes.

Just wanted to set the record straight.

cgf

- Raw text -