Re: [Iverilog-devel] Great work...

[Cary R. <cy...@ya...>]

--- On Thu, 5/15/08, Stephen Williams <st...@ic...> wrote:

> 2) I (personally) am OK with it as long as you are not
> somehow
> claiming it for your own, or you are not hiding your own
> patches
> in there.

Yes, make sure all the patches get back into the main tree. There is probably a requirement that the exact source used to build the binary be a available so pointing back to the main repository would likely not be enough if you build from git. I would suggest having the source tar file used to build the binary available, but very prominently point to the main source repository as the place to get the latest and hopefully best version. This should minimize the number of source code downloads from your site.

You could probably get around hosting the source files if you only built snapshots since the exact source for them is always easily available from the main repository. If you go this route we probably need to be a little better at providing timely snapshots.

I dumped my MinGW setup a while ago since Cygwin provides most of what I need under windows, but I do know the MinGW executables are significantly faster and not everyone needs or wants the Cygwin overhead. The question I have about MinGW is do we use the stable install or some enhanced version? There are a number of things missing from the stable install and some of the newer support programs do not compile. I have an email in to Pablo asking him what his MinGW setup is. As a minimum we need to decide what the MinGW configuration will be and document exactly what is needed to recreate  this configuration in the mingw.txt file.

Cary