cygwin bughunt (FAQ alert?)

Christopher Faylor
Sat Jan 22 04:26:00 GMT 2005

On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 05:28:38PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:47:20PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:45:44PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>>On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:02:33PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>>   tar xjf cygwin-1.5.12-1-src.tar.bz2
>>>>   cd cygwin-1.5.12-1
>>>>   mkdir build
>>>>   cd build
>>>>   (../configure; make) >& make.out
>>>>It does make sense to check CVS or a snapshot to see if your problem is
>>>>fixed before you go to any effort trying to debug a problem, however.
>>>Great.  Just put the above in the FAQ, plus some words about needing an
>>>unstripped dll.
>>Information about building the DLL is already in the FAQ.
>If you refer to it has the
>apparently obsolete information about needing a separate w32api and it
>recommends to use cvs.

You included the section where I said it was probably a good idea to use
CVS or a snapshot.  So, the FAQ is accurate there.  You're right that
the rest of it should be updated.

However, if the fact that the cygwin FAQ entry is mildly inaccurate was
a true stumbling block for people who wanted to debug the DLL, then I
think we would have seen a complaint about it by now.

I think it's pretty clear that the people who are clamoring for this
don't really know what they want and assume that a dll with debugging
symbols will either enable them to debug the dll without going through
the awful rigors of building or they think they would have a better
opportunity of having cygwin tech support look at their back traces.
Neither is precisely true.

However, I have already said that it is on my todo list to try to
provide a debuginfo package for cygwin.  It will show up in some
future release.


Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

More information about the Cygwin mailing list