DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 q=dns; s=default; b=KxFmGa0XCHaz1SwC2VZ3bDrtSDw8BbyJoD/ocmdFx0l
	JDikPgNVrYq80mGKR0oN0edz3LMFCG+xQTxXiOtMGksU5pFgqKhvWoNkHFDSwkj9
	Qx32zgJcbTWE4sVyQ6PMe8vaqVDL/4vUdSQMqklvZ3VUNDC1HAq+vLvwHpFUcl/k
	=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Message-ID: <51D2EBA6.1070407@cs.utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 11:03:02 -0400
From: Ryan Johnson <ryan.johnson@cs.utoronto.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: gcc-4.7.3-1
References: <announce.51D2AABD.6030706@gmail.com> <51D2C0F6.9060405@cs.utoronto.ca> <51D2E8AC.1040902@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <51D2E8AC.1040902@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 02/07/2013 10:50 AM, JonY wrote:
> On 7/2/2013 20:00, Ryan Johnson wrote:
>> On 02/07/2013 6:26 AM, JonY wrote:
>>> Version 4.7.3-1 of gcc has been uploaded. Some important notes are:
>>>
>>> * gcc-3.x is now finally removed, replaced by this version.
>>>
>>> * This means -mno-cygwin support is also removed completely, use the
>>> provided cross compilers to build Windows code.
>>>
>>> * Previous gcc4-4.5.3 has been renamed to gcc and placed as previous.
>> So this means there is now only one gcc package now, called "gcc" ? With
>> 4.7.3 being the current/default version and 4.5.3 being available as the
>> "previous" version in setup if you insist on using old stuff?
>>
>> How delightful!
> Yes, it is finally gone :)
>
> I wonder when the backlash from users following outdated guides and FAQs
> will start.
You know, we should really have some sort of bounty program where people 
can bring up third-party "stuff" and have it added to a list in cygwin's 
web page somewhere: if it covers something useful (as in, cygwin's 
documentation was lacking), we can incorporate the goodness with proper 
attribution; if it's out of date or just plain inaccurate, we can flag 
it as such. Knowing how Google works, it's entirely plausible that 
somebody searching for an outdated guide would instead find Cygwin's 
link to it, along with the blurb explaining why it shouldn't be used 
[1]. It would be especially delicious if some of those sites had 
automatic track-back systems that posted the official cygwin take in 
their own comments. It would also encourage people to check the source 
first (or at least check that list) before swallowing a cygwin myth, 
kind of like snopes does for internet hoaxes.

Of course, SHTDI, so this may never happen... but it might cut list 
traffic enough to pay for itself.

Ryan

[1] We could call it "Embrace, Embarrass, Eliminate." Microsoft would be 
proud.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple