This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try
- From: Charles Wilson <cygwin at cwilson dot fastmail dot fm>
- To: Mailing List: CygWin-Apps <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:28:02 -0400
- Subject: Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try
- References: <4C7499CE.email@example.com> <4C7D58C4.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4C7DA3D5.email@example.com>
On 8/31/2010 8:52 PM, JonY wrote:
> On 9/1/2010 03:32, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> Rebuilds fine from source (*), but the binary tarball above is not ok.
>> It has the headers in the following directory:
>> instead of
>> Now, if I *rebuild*, the binary tarball generated has the headers in the
>> correct spot; I think you just uploaded an old version.
> Strange, I'll try a rebuild. The former should be the correct location.
Errr...no. The *latter* is the correct location (at least, that's where
the sysroot'ed compiler will look for them).
the (buggy) cygport(1) puts them in
but we really want them to be in
which is what your cygport(5) does -- when you actually use it to rebuild.
>> Or does building gcc-4.5.x Ada require a newer native Ada compiler than
> I installed gcc 4.5.x from experimental for this purpose. The GCC docs
> say to have a native ada compiler of the same version installed first.
> GCC 4.5.0 and 4.5.1 should be close enough.
Oh, I did not know that; I figured "any old Ada would do". OK...
>> To sum up, assuming the Ada thing has a reasonable explanation, and the
>> setup.hints are fixed, I think this is GTG.
>> If you want to hold off and see what Yaakov does about the issue below,
>> and maybe revise your cygport(5)'s based on a new release of cygport(1),
>> that's up to you.
> OK, my cygport was mostly from Yaakov's examples.
Thanks for your hard work.