On 7/7/2010 8:39 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 7 08:08, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> I hope I have summed up the various competing proposals fairly, and that
>> this edition of my patented War and Peace emails helps move the
>> discussion along to a conclusion.
>
> Ok, I'm sufficiently confuse
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 06:22:30PM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Charles Wilson
> wrote:
>> On 7/7/2010 5:03 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:44:14PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
On 7 July 2010 18:27, NightStrike wrote:
>
>
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 06:12:23PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>On 7/7/2010 5:03 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:44:14PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>> On 7 July 2010 18:27, NightStrike wrote:
How's it built now?
>>>
>>> With Cygwin gcc and the -mno-cygwin option, us
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Charles Wilson
wrote:
> On 7/7/2010 5:03 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:44:14PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7 July 2010 18:27, NightStrike wrote:
How's it built now?
>>>
>>> With Cygwin gcc and the -mno-cygwin option
On 7/7/2010 5:03 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:44:14PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
On 7 July 2010 18:27, NightStrike wrote:
How's it built now?
With Cygwin gcc and the -mno-cygwin option, using mingw.org's w32api.
It doesn't use -mno-cygwin. How could it? The build
On 7 July 2010 22:03, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:44:14PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>On 7 July 2010 18:27, NightStrike wrote:
I suppose you could build cygwin with a mingw compiler but that's not
how it's built now so I don't see why it makes a difference.
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:44:14PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
>On 7 July 2010 18:27, NightStrike wrote:
>>> I suppose you could build cygwin with a mingw compiler but that's not
>>> how it's built now so I don't see why it makes a difference.
>>>
>>> cgf
>>
>> How's it built now?
>
>With Cygwin gcc a
On 7/7/2010 11:12 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
The important question for me is, can Cygwin be built using the w32api
based on the mingw64 sources?
Is it possible? Maybe; we'll just have to try it.
Is it legally permissible, given (possibly overblown?) concerns about
provenance of the changes
On 7 July 2010 18:27, NightStrike wrote:
>> I suppose you could build cygwin with a mingw compiler but that's not
>> how it's built now so I don't see why it makes a difference.
>>
>> cgf
>
> How's it built now?
With Cygwin gcc and the -mno-cygwin option, using mingw.org's w32api.
Andy
On 7/7/2010 9:48 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jul 7 08:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:39:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/mingw*
sysroot idea. However, I don't like the idea in the least to keep
two
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Christopher Faylor
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 11:16:54AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>>On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 11:33 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> >Here's my question, though: given the incompatibilities mentioned, would
>>> >a cygwin1.dll built with
On Jul 7 08:34, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 7/7/2010 1:19 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Jul 6 15:41, David Rothenberger wrote:
> >> On 7/6/2010 2:55 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 11:19 -0700, David Rothenberger wrote:
> I'd like to package libkate[1] in pre
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 11:16:54AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 11:33 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >Here's my question, though: given the incompatibilities mentioned, would
>> >a cygwin1.dll built with i686-w64-cygwin (mingw-w64) toolchain be 100%
>> >compatible wit
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 11:33 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >Here's my question, though: given the incompatibilities mentioned, would
> >a cygwin1.dll built with i686-w64-cygwin (mingw-w64) toolchain be 100%
> >compatible with current and past releases built with i686-pc-cygwin
> >(mingw.org) to
On 7/7/2010 1:19 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 6 15:41, David Rothenberger wrote:
>> On 7/6/2010 2:55 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 11:19 -0700, David Rothenberger wrote:
I'd like to package libkate[1] in preparation for packaging the
newest version of vor
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 10:22:17AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 08:58 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Unfortunately, it sounds like we've stepped into the middle of a dispute
>> between the mingw folks and the mingw64 folks. Maybe the best thing for
>> us to do would
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 08:58 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Unfortunately, it sounds like we've stepped into the middle of a dispute
> between the mingw folks and the mingw64 folks. Maybe the best thing for
> us to do would be to decide to use only one or the other but not both.
It does seem t
On Jul 7 09:44, Yaakov S wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 10:19 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > So, is that ok to upload or are you going to change that first?
>
> It's not wrong, just cleaner for the maintainer, that's all.
Thanks, yes, that's how I understood it. I'm just asking if David wan
On Jul 7 10:49, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 04:43:49PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >Ok, that's something I can live with. I don't understand the notion to
> >keep _WIN32_WINNT at 0x0400 anyway. The idea of this value is to be set
> >manually if I *don't* want modern
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 04:43:49PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>Ok, that's something I can live with. I don't understand the notion to
>keep _WIN32_WINNT at 0x0400 anyway. The idea of this value is to be set
>manually if I *don't* want modern functions, but the default should be
>to allow *all
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 10:19 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> So, is that ok to upload or are you going to change that first?
It's not wrong, just cleaner for the maintainer, that's all.
Yaakov
On Jul 7 22:04, JonY wrote:
> On 7/7/2010 21:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Jul 7 21:19, JonY wrote:
> >>On 7/7/2010 20:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:39:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/ming
On 7/7/2010 21:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jul 7 21:19, JonY wrote:
On 7/7/2010 20:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:39:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/mingw*
sysroot idea. However, I don't like the
2010/7/7 Corinna Vinschen :
> On Jul 7 21:19, JonY wrote:
>> On 7/7/2010 20:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:39:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >>Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/mingw*
>> >>sysroot idea. However, I don't like the i
On Jul 7 21:19, JonY wrote:
> On 7/7/2010 20:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:39:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/mingw*
> >>sysroot idea. However, I don't like the idea in the least to keep
> >>two d
On Jul 7 08:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:39:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/mingw*
> >sysroot idea. However, I don't like the idea in the least to keep
> >two different versions of w32api around.
On 7/7/2010 20:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:39:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/mingw*
sysroot idea. However, I don't like the idea in the least to keep
two different versions of w32api around. It's o
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:39:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/mingw*
>sysroot idea. However, I don't like the idea in the least to keep
>two different versions of w32api around. It's one target, so we should
>have one set of head
On Jul 7 08:08, Charles Wilson wrote:
> [accidentally posted to the main list; re-sent here]
>
> On 7/6/2010 10:35 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 22:07 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> I'd want to check with Corinna on this but I am mildly opposed to putting
> >> this
[accidentally posted to the main list; re-sent here]
On 7/6/2010 10:35 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 22:07 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> I'd want to check with Corinna on this but I am mildly opposed to putting
>> this in /opt. I don't think it makes sense there. But
On Jul 6 15:41, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 7/6/2010 2:55 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 11:19 -0700, David Rothenberger wrote:
> >> I'd like to package libkate[1] in preparation for packaging the
> >> newest version of vorbis-tools.
> >>
> >> libkate is included in Fedo
On Jul 6 21:35, Yaakov S wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 22:07 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > I'd want to check with Corinna on this but I am mildly opposed to putting
> > this in /opt. I don't think it makes sense there. But I haven't been
> > following closely, though. Where does Debian
On Jul 6 10:59, David Rothenberger wrote:
> Please leave 0.8.8-1 as previous.
>
> The new version introduces libao4, so please move the libao2 package
> to the _obsolete category.
Done.
> wget -x -nH --cut-dirs=2 \
> http://home.comcast.net/~david.rothenberger/cygwin/libao/setup.hint \
> ht
On Jul 6 10:41, David Rothenberger wrote:
> Please remove 1.2.0-2 and leave 1.2.3-1 as the previous version.
>
> wget -x -nH --cut-dirs=2 \
> http://home.comcast.net/~david.rothenberger/cygwin/libvorbis/setup.hint \
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~david.rothenberger/cygwin/libvorbis/libvorbisfi
On Jul 6 10:24, David Rothenberger wrote:
> Please delete 1.1.3-1 and leave 1.1.4-1 as the previous version.
>
> wget -x -nH --cut-dirs=2 \
> http://home.comcast.net/~david.rothenberger/cygwin/libogg/setup.hint \
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~david.rothenberger/cygwin/libogg/libogg0/setup.hin
35 matches
Mail list logo
