This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [ITA] gmp (libgmp-devel / libgmp3 / libgmpxx4)
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:39:16 +0100
- Subject: Re: [ITA] gmp (libgmp-devel / libgmp3 / libgmpxx4)
- References: <87vc8zmfmi dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <20130311233526 dot 574d2f70 at YAAKOV04> <87zjy9f95d dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <20130312105156 dot 339dbc17 at YAAKOV04> <877glcplih dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <87k3pcnu29 dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <513FBF58 dot 30208 at gmail dot com> <20130326112006 dot GD14833 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <515444E7 dot 5030601 at gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Mar 28 13:25, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 26/03/2013 11:20, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> > On Mar 12 23:50, Dave Korn wrote:
> >> On 12/03/2013 22:15, Achim Gratz wrote:
> >>> Achim Gratz writes:
> >>>> Yaakov (Cygwin/X) writes:
> >>>> OK. I won't be able to run the tests for some packages this way, but it
> >>>> sounds like this should provide a workable solution for bootstrapping.
> >>>> I guess we will anyway have to re-compile all packages with gcc47 when
> >>>> it is ready for release, right?
> >>> Fascinatingly the tests for libmpc do run, although ldd gets confused
> >>> about what libraries it depends on and stops midway after outputting a
> >>> dependence on ?????.
> >>> If the second gcc47 test release is made within this week I'd prefer
> >>> that to roll the packages, otherwise I'll set up a second installation
> >>> with the current release. I'll put all packages for the gcc47 branch
> >>> into [test], like gcc itself, is that correct?
> >> I haven't yet had an explicit go-ahead for that -2 release, but I've been
> >> rerolling it with the mpfr (shared libgcc) fix in order to be ready. Gonna
> >> check the same fix into upstream trunk tonight as well.
> > How's the state of affairs?
> I've realised that I should re-roll the release after updating to the latest
> cygport, as I don't yet have the version with the debuginfo changes, which I
> assume are desirable?
Just run setup ;)
> If that's not so important, I could upload the existing build today and then
> re-roll a -3 with debuginfo, does anyone prefer it one way or the other?
I'd be fine with a -2 without debuginfo for now.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com