This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: ITP: libtool-devel, libtool-stable, libtool (wrappers)
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 13:33:09 -0500
- Subject: Re: ITP: libtool-devel, libtool-stable, libtool (wrappers)
- References: <3C3C8A0E.9000100@ece.gatech.edu>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 01:21:02PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Preliminary versions are here:
>
> http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/testing/
>
>See this message (and the thread that follows it) for more info:
>
>http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-12/msg00179.html
>
>Although I will support these packages -- as "cygwin applications" I do
>NOT intend to answer "how do I use libtool" questions. I will silently
>drop any message to the cygwin list concerning these packages that I
>believe are *libtool* questions and not *cygwin* questions -- without
>even a "go ask on the libtool mailing list" reply.
>
>1) is the above attitude acceptable? If not, then is anybody else
>willing to take over those packages and "ITP" them?
>2) is "rc6" okay for a ${REL} number, or should it be a pure number?
>(p.s. 'rc' means "robert collins hack" not "release candidate")
upset will do the right thing with it. I just checked. It even seems to
properly support rc6 vs. rc7.
I don't have any problems with it but it *is* a departure from the
guidelines in http://cygwin.com/setup.html, I believe.
I'll let Robert make the executive decision on this one, I think.
cgf