X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of GNU binutils 2.34 uploaded.
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
References:	<202003101900 DOT 02AJ0s2L026948 AT delorie DOT com>
	<88b53f3e-5c10-256f-5a0c-aa942a48c6e9 AT gmail DOT com> <5E694788 DOT 5090308 AT gmx DOT de>
From:	"Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Message-ID:	<41a90860-92e9-632e-4b56-4da87681e8f3@iki.fi>
Date:	Fri, 13 Mar 2020 06:30:16 +0200
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<5E694788.5090308@gmx.de>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from Quoted-Printable to 8bit by delorie.com id 02D4V3rU007218
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 3/11/20 10:18 PM, Juan Manuel Guerrero (juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> Am 11.03.2020 15:56, schrieb J.W. Jagersma (jwjagersma AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]:
>
> [snip]
>>>    DJGPP specific changes.
>>>    =======================
>>>    - There are no DJGPP specific changes compared with the previous port.
>>>      The DJGPP specific changes enumerated below are the same than the ones
>>>      already available in the previous port.
>>
>> Are there any plans to have these changes (even partially) upstreamed
>> to GNU?  Because currently the upstream version is unusable even for
>> cross-compiling, primarily due to a missing '_environ' symbol in the
>> ldscripts.
>
> No, I have no intention to upstream the patch to GNU.  Primary due to my
> limited english skills I do not want to become involved in endless discussions
> about a port that may be considered today as archaic by the maintainers.
> I do not even know if there is still an official COFF and/or djgpp maintainer
> of binutils.

Getting in parts that are necessary for building a cross-compiler should be not too difficult I 
guess . Than means changes to libbfd and linker scripts. I suppose that DJ would give some support 
in discussions. An example of such assistance:

- https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg02005.html (see all thread)

I did not succeed to get in all changes in than but would not have perhaps got in anything at all 
without DJ assistance then

Changes needed to build with 8+3 filename limitations is another thing. I would not even try that. 
I does not really matter as it is easy to build native binutils for DJGPP using cross-compiler.


> Neitherless everybody is invited to review the patch and to try to get part
> of it upstreamed into binutils.  I will not interfer nor make any claims on
> it.  If you think you can convince the binutils maintainers to accept parts
> of the patch that make the cross-compiler work again or if you have a better
> solution for the djgpp specific issues, please feel free to go ahaed.
> If there are any other parts of the patch that you think are usefull to get
> included into binutils again, go ahead. 

You need to submit copyright papers to FSF also if somebody else is handling getting changes to 
upstream if I understand correctly (of course of You do not have that already done).

Andris

PS. English is not my native language either. I did not learn English at school at all (then in 
Latvia about half learned German and half English at school and I belonged to part learning German. 
It (German) is well forgotten now however. Currently I mostly use Finnish in everyday life 
including at work. So I do not think that Your english skills are a problem here also when I see 
what You have written in this list

- Raw text -