Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:03:50 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: strange source packaging?
Message-ID: <20020418160350.GB32528@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20020417210033 DOT GB20207 AT redhat DOT com> <49269 DOT 66 DOT 32 DOT 89 DOT 136 DOT 1019089317 DOT squirrel AT secure2 DOT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20020418110943 DOT D24938 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3CBEDBBA DOT 5040000 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20020418170631 DOT G29277 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3CBEE9DA DOT 7050005 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3CBEE9DA.7050005@ece.gatech.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 11:44:26AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>The argument for style 1 against style 2 is this:  Does anybody, other 
>than Chris, have ANY idea what the differences between gnu-gcc-2.95.3 
>and cygwin-gcc-2.95.3-5 are?  How many files are changed, and how 
>significantly?  What options were used to build the cygwin binary 
>package?  Before Chris reluctantly picked up the duty, did anyone other 
>than Mumit have a clue about the minutia of those differences (worse 
>yet, Mumit's version was a fork of the cgywin version, which itself was 
>a fork of the egcs version, which was a fork of the official gnu version...)

I know this is mainly a rhetorical question but actually, *I* don't have
any idea what all of the differences are.  I took over some patches from
Mumit that are for all intensive porpoises just black magic.

However, I have no problems generating the patch files, when required by
downloading the tar ball from gcc.gnu.org and then doing the diffs.

I have been trying to up-port my changes to the main trunk when possible
but I suspect that there are still a few tweaks in the cygwin release that
are not in gcc 3.1.

 From my point of view, when I download the source rpm for a package, I
always find it rather annoying that I have to apply patches by hand.  I'd
rather just have the latest, greatest version of things extracted into
a directory where I can type "configure/make" without any extra thinking
involved.

My 1c.  Now back to this resurrected discusion...

cgf