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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:36:30 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Texinfo-4.0 Message-ID: <20001122203630.A13867@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> <20001122175741 DOT A12681 AT redhat DOT com> <3A1C73C5 DOT DAFD322A AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <3A1C73C5.DAFD322A@ece.gatech.edu>; from cwilson@ece.gatech.edu on Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 08:32:53PM -0500 On Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 08:32:53PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> 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. > >I'm in favor of removing -DWIN32 / -DWINNT from the specs file for >normal gcc compiles (they *would* be defined for -mno-cygwin compiles). >However, the real issue is Red Hat's paying cygwin customers -- how >would *they* react to this change? Hmm. Excellent point. We don't ship gcc 2.95.2 for our customers, however, I don't know if I want to change defaults for our customers. Earnie, have you tried building an entire source tree including gcc, gdb, binutils, expect, dejagnu, etc.? I wonder if there are gotchas there. cgf