Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 17:57:41 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Texinfo-4.0
Message-ID: <20001122175741.A12681@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20001122224758 DOT 2391 DOT qmail AT web115 DOT yahoomail DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <20001122224758.2391.qmail@web115.yahoomail.com>; from earnie_boyd@yahoo.com on Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 02:47:58PM -0800

On Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 02:47:58PM -0800, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>--- Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 02:01:05PM -0800, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>> >--- Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> Right.  I would welcome a texinfo update but, if anything it should use
>> >> -mno-win32 as an option to avoid Win32'isms.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >This is the reason I modified my specs file to remove those definitions. 
>> IMHO,
>> >reversing -mno-win32 to -mwin32 is best.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, I think it is too late for this now.  I think it will cause
>> immense confusion and breakage if we do this.
>> 
>
>Like what?  How?  IMO, the confusion and breakage is with the way the specs are
>now.

For people who are using gcc to compile Windows programs for one.  For
another, I'm sure that there are packages out there that are actually
doing the right thing for the wrong reason under 'ifdef WIN32' control.

However, I'm willing to be swayed on the issue.  If everyone else agrees
that changing the default is the right decision, I'll be happy to do it.

cgf