So, *should* I go back to distributing the mingw/w32api sources in the cygwin source tarball?

[Earnie Boyd]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 12:05:14PM -0500, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> 
>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>>>The subject says it all.  If I don't distribute the mingw and w32api
>>>sources, I stand the chance of releasing a version of the sources that
>>>won't build until the next release of mingw or w32api.  I don't want to
>>>have to go through the effort of coordinating with Earnie every time I
>>>release cygwin so the alternative is to go back to including the mingw
>>>and w32api sources in the cygwin source tarball.
>>>
>>>I don't like the thought of duplication here but I guess I've finally
>>>grown weary of the bug reports from people who can't build from the
>>>sources available via tarball.
>>>
>>
>>I'm not going to say much about it other than, I empathize with you. 
>>Perhaps a symlink to the installed versions would do?
> 
> 
> I forgot to mention that I changed the top-level configury so that
> w32api is no longer absolutely required.  So, there is no need for
> a symlink anymore (I hope).  Or, rather, if there is, I'll fix it.
> 

That's a good thing, IMO.

> That doesn't stop the inevitable version skew, though, when something
> gets fixed in w32api and cygwin relies on it.
> 

I realized that shortly after sending my first reply.

I suppose a check for __MINGW32_VERSION as found in _mingw.h and 
__W32API_VERSION as found in w32api.h in the configury might be 
possible.  Then you could give an appropriate warning at configure time.

Earnie.