Re: gcc package idea for consideration.

["Gareth Pearce" <tilps at hotmail dot com>]

> >So i'm going to propose an idea, just incase it doesnt get shot down.
> >Or maybe Chris could convince me that i dont actually need to know
> >anything to be able to maintain the gcc with cygwin specials package at
> >all.
>
> You need to know C, shell, autoconf, and CVS.  I don't really have to
> tell you what you need to know.  You could just try it if you are
> interested.

*chuckle* - I was meaning, above and beyond maintaining a standard gcc
distribution.  For that I'd need to know things about -mno-cygwin and
dllexport etc.  Currently i've never (outside of compiling cygwin - woohoo i
can type make) used these.  I'll see if a nice close look at the mingw
branch changes my mind about things.

>
> >So my proposal is, a blatant rip off from debian.  I propose a
> >gcc-testing package.  This package will be taken from gcc cvs (not
> >cygwin/mingw32 branch).  However, unlike debian's gcc-testing package,
> >I would choose the branch which will have the next official gcc
> >release.  That would be 3.3 at the current time.  (where as debian
> >gcc-testing is 3.4)
>
> That doesn't help.  There are still many customizations in the gcc/mingw
> branch that are not in the mainline.  Releasing a package without these
> customizations would just confuse people.
Ahh, I hate it when I'm right, I suspected this responce.
I would suggest a gcc-testing version based on the mingw branch - but, that
would basically be a gcc package anyway. (since cygwin-mingw doesnt appear
to have a 3.3 or 3.4 based branch yet.)

I'll do a more indepth look tommorow, maybe my no-cygwin worries are
groundless.

Ofcourse, if Egor is still willing, he would fairly obviously be a better
candidate for a replacement maintainer.

Gareth - crazy maintainer wannabe.