Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <3DCD520A.6090504@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 13:20:58 -0500 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: binutils 20021107-2 References: <20021109105904 DOT 24937 DOT qmail AT web21405 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> <1036844910 DOT 31190 DOT 0 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <3DCD4623 DOT 8070800 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3DCD4691 DOT 1070601 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20021109181030 DOT GB16969 AT redhat DOT com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>Nope. Chris should apply the attached patch to binutils and re-release. >>>It's surprising we didn't catch this when gcc-3.x/gcc2-2.95 were >>>getting their shakedown this summer. Oh well. >>> >>>Also, Chris, you could take the opportunity of binutils-20021107-3 to >>>apply Egor's remaining patches... :-) >>> >> >>Oops. Previous patch still left a chunk of Egor's changes. New patch >>replaces. >> > > How about submitting the patch to the binutils mailing list? > I've no objections -- but the patch is a workaround for a cygwin-specific packaging decision (e.g. providing gcc-2.95.3 as "gcc-2" and renaming the runtime libs accordingly). Is that something that should go into the "real" binutils CVS, or should it be kept in the cygwin binutils package only? --Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/