Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 17:09:24 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Geomview & Cygwin setup [Attn gcc maintainer]
Message-ID: <20060429210924.GA8373@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <042920061646 DOT 11264 DOT 445398670004ADDD00002C0022092299270A050E040D0C079D0A AT comcast DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <042920061646.11264.445398670004ADDD00002C0022092299270A050E040D0C079D0A@comcast.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 04:46:31PM +0000, Eric Blake wrote:
>However, I feel that the output of gcc -v is not entirely freeform, because
>part of it is also used in gcc --version.  In this recent autoconf thread,
>http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2006-04/msg00116.html,
>it was pointed out that Debian has a similar bug where their gcc's
>version output violates GNU coding standards by not ending in a
>version number.  Gerritt, I would suggest that the next time you
>package gcc for cygwin, that you alter the version string such that
>it ends in a version number, perhaps something like:
>gcc (GCC) 3.4.4 (cygwin/mingw special, gdc 0.12, dmd 0.125) 3.4.4-2

When I first introduced the parentheses in the version, I tried to
follow advice of one of the gcc developers and I patterned the output
vaguely on some version of Red Hat's gcc.

I've just run 'gcc --version' on Fedora, Gentoo, Cygwin, and Debian,.
All of their version strings end with a parenthesized expression.  The
only thing that they seem to do that Cygwin doesn't is include some
variation of the gcc version within the parentheses.  So, if you know
you're running on "Gentoo Linux" you'll be able to find out what release
of, e.g., gcc 3.3.4 you're using).  This particular bit of information
would not solve the intractable problem which started this discussion.

I don't see any reason for Gerrit to change anything except possibly
to put everything within one parenthesized expression.  "GNU standards"
aside, we seem to be in good company.

Now, let's move on from this topic?  Please?  I really don't think it
deserves this much attention.

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/