Re: [Mingw-users] GCC 3.4.5 with Vista fix; MinGW installer makeover
Hi John,
Please keep this discussion on-list.
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 14:24 -0700, John E. / TDM wrote:
> Keith Marshall wrote:
> > ...so, since you've already prepared a more complete package set, let's
> > deploy it. There are two ways we can go about it:--
> >
> > 1) Let me know your SF user name, (please create one, if you don't yet
> > have one), and I'll add you as a project member, with rights to install
> > them yourself.
>
> This way sounds good, as I do already have a SourceForge account and
> am familiar with the FRS. My SF user name is "tdragon".
Ok. You are now set up to proceed on that basis.
> > If we opt for the latter option, please ensure that all files are named
> > appropriately, before you upload them, for we don't get any opportunity
> > to rename on transfer to the FRS. Since you have built from the same
> > sources as the existing current release, I suggest keeping the same
> > version numbers, adding a `-vista' tag, such as:--
> >
> > gcc-core-3.4.5-20060117-1-vista.tar.gz
> > gcc-c++-3.4.5-20060117-1-vista.tar.gz
> > etc...
> >
> > and simply add them into the existing package; (since you didn't change
> > them, there's no need to upload the sources again). For that matter, if
> > we go for the former option, you could still adopt this convention.
>
> This brings to mind another issue -- the internal version string. I
> had tacked a "v2" onto the end of the version string in version.c in
> order to differentiate between the new build and the original, so that
> it now reads "3.4.5 (mingw special v2)" instead of "3.4.5 (mingw
> special)". Is this desirable and acceptable? (I think we need it, or
> something like it.)
I agree, some change is needed. My own inclination would be to use:
3.4.5 (mingw-vista special)
or some such, but it isn't too critical, as long as it is different;
RFC: what would other users prefer?
Obviously, this does necessitate a source change, so at the very least
we would need to upload a corresponding patch file. Maybe we should
take the opportunity to fix some other source package problems, such as
the missing info files in the binutils sources, recently reported in
another thread.
Additionally, this talk of info files reminds me that any `dir' files
need to be removed from the info dir(s) of the installed images, before
creating the binary distributions; I consider it a packaging bug, to
include such files in the tarballs.
Regards,
Keith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
MinGW-users mailing list
MinGW-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users