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, 7 Nov 2001 00:22:02 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Want to be a gcc/binutils maintainer?
Message-ID: <20011107002202.A11903@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20010908230405 DOT A17395 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20010908230405.A17395@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

I got a couple of nibbles about this before.

Anyone interested in this exciting and challenging responsibility?

cgf

On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 11:04:05PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>I picked up gcc and binutils maintainership because the previous people
>who had been doing it sort of went silent.
>
>Maintaining these packages is not something that I want to do, however.
>
>Is anyone else interested in doing this?
>
>Maintaining binutils is relatively easy.  I have one small patch that I
>keep in the distribution.  It received some inexplicable resistance from
>binutils maintainers but I could probably push it in, if I had to.
>
>Maintaining gcc is harder due to the fact that you can't just build and
>release the FSF release.  There are several additional patches required
>that, for some reason, the gcc maintainers don't seem to want to apply.
>
>There are also some patches that I've made to gcc to allow the
>-mno-cygwin option to work better.  I doubt that they would be accepted
>in the mainline gcc.  These currently are pretty 2.95.3 specific.
>
>Now that I've scared everyone off, is anyone interested in maintaining
>the cygwin gcc release?
>
>FWIW, I can still be of some help in my capacity as FSF gcc cygwin
>maintainer so I can get changes into the cygwin/mingw versions of gcc.
>
>If I don't hear from anyone here, I'm going to push this request to
>the cygwin mailing list, too.
>
>cgf

-- 
cgf AT redhat DOT com                        Red Hat, Inc.
http://sources.redhat.com/            http://www.redhat.com/