X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 22:31:01 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Eliminating -mno-cygwin from gcc. Message-ID: <20070205033101.GE24653@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <020d01c748b4$62d8b170$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <20070205030939.GB24653@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <45C6A0DC.3010104@users.sourceforge.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45C6A0DC.3010104@users.sourceforge.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 09:13:32PM -0600, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>I think I'd rather wait until some kind of early warning system is >>available in setup.exe than issue a "deprecated" warning which has the >>capacity to propagate everywhere and live for a long time. > >Why isn't cygwin-announce sufficient? We rely on that for everything >else. I'm just afraid that if the setup.exe patch , if not imminent, >could hold up the gcc development. If you have been reading this list for any length of time then it should be obvious that merely mentioning something in cygwin-announce is not an adequate way to let people know about serious changes. cgf -- 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/