Re: [RFC] ready for cygport to default to gcc4?

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Apr  3 10:23, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Yes, and we're (slowly) getting there.  BTW, I do not believe the
> following thread
> "[RFC] ABI bump for building with gcc4 ?"
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2009-03/msg00033.html
> ever reached a resolution.  Only you, Dave, and I participated...any
> other maintainers have an opinion?

Not me.  I'm just going with the flow.

> FWIW, I'm starting to lean in your direction (towards a flag day
> release) on that regard, but I'd really like to hear from Corinna and/or
> cgf on that issue. Also, a flag day release requires the participation
> of ALL maintainers, so it's not a decision that just a few of us can
> make on our own.

Many packages have no requirement for a flag day at all.  What about
packages like sed, which basically consist of a single application?
What sense does it make to re-build it with gcc4?

Not all maintainers are very active.  That's no criticism, it's just the
fact of life and, even when not being as active as the core pack, they
are helping the Cygwin distro a lot.

Having said that, I think that a flag day is sort of impracticable.
We can require that new packages and new versions of new packages
will be built using gcc-4.  But I don't see a reason to rebuild
already existing package versions.  Time (new upstream release) or
necessity (spurious crashes) will take care of that.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat