From: Vincent T. <vt...@un...> - 2009-01-30 14:00:56
|
Hey, I would like to know the status of the port. The last alpha release has been provided in May 2008. Will there be more work on that version of gcc, or will another version (4.3.3 or 4.3.4 or 4.4.*) be used for the mingw port ? thank you Vincent Torri |
From: Doug S. <dsc...@ro...> - 2009-01-30 15:40:46
|
Vincent Torri wrote: > Hey, > > I would like to know the status of the port. The last alpha release has > been provided in May 2008. > > Will there be more work on that version of gcc, or will another version > (4.3.3 or 4.3.4 or 4.4.*) be used for the mingw port ? > > thank you > > Vincent Torri > > I use this: http://www.tdragon.net/recentgcc/ Doug. |
From: Vincent T. <vt...@un...> - 2009-01-30 16:01:12
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Doug Schaefer wrote: >> I would like to know the status of the port. The last alpha release has >> been provided in May 2008. >> >> Will there be more work on that version of gcc, or will another version >> (4.3.3 or 4.3.4 or 4.4.*) be used for the mingw port ? > > I use this: http://www.tdragon.net/recentgcc/ I know it, but i actually wanted to know to status of the "official" mingw port of gcc Vincent |
From: Rolf E. <rol...@gm...> - 2009-01-30 16:26:18
|
Vincent Torri schrieb: > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Doug Schaefer wrote: > >>> I would like to know the status of the port. The last alpha release has >>> been provided in May 2008. >>> >>> Will there be more work on that version of gcc, or will another version >>> (4.3.3 or 4.3.4 or 4.4.*) be used for the mingw port ? >> I use this: http://www.tdragon.net/recentgcc/ But the Ada compilers there don't actually work (no exception handling at all). > I know it, but i actually wanted to know to status of the "official" mingw > port of gcc I'd also like to know, mainly interested in the Ada compiler :-) Rolf |
From: Weddington, E. <ewe...@cs...> - 2009-01-30 16:35:04
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: Rolf Ebert [mailto:rol...@gm...] > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:26 AM > To: MinGW Users List > Subject: Re: [Mingw-users] status of the gcc 4.3.0 port > > Vincent Torri schrieb: > > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Doug Schaefer wrote: > > > >>> I would like to know the status of the port. The last > alpha release has > >>> been provided in May 2008. > >>> > >>> Will there be more work on that version of gcc, or will > another version > >>> (4.3.3 or 4.3.4 or 4.4.*) be used for the mingw port ? > >> I use this: http://www.tdragon.net/recentgcc/ > > > But the Ada compilers there don't actually work (no exception > handling > at all). > > > I know it, but i actually wanted to know to status of the > "official" mingw > > port of gcc > > I'd also like to know, mainly interested in the Ada compiler :-) > I'm with Rolf. :-) I'd like to know the status of the official mingw port. Eric Weddington |
From: David G. <jdg...@am...> - 2009-01-30 19:35:19
|
Rolf Ebert wrote: > Vincent Torri schrieb: > >> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Doug Schaefer wrote: >> >> >>>> I would like to know the status of the port. The last alpha release has >>>> been provided in May 2008. >>>> >>>> Will there be more work on that version of gcc, or will another version >>>> (4.3.3 or 4.3.4 or 4.4.*) be used for the mingw port ? >>>> >>> I use this: http://www.tdragon.net/recentgcc/ >>> > > > But the Ada compilers there don't actually work (no exception handling > at all). > > >> I know it, but i actually wanted to know to status of the "official" mingw >> port of gcc >> > > I'd also like to know, mainly interested in the Ada compiler :-) > > Rolf > Same here, I use Ada also. |
From: Lothar M. <lot...@go...> - 2009-02-01 12:21:17
|
2009/1/30 Doug Schaefer <dsc...@ro...>: > > I use this: http://www.tdragon.net/recentgcc/ > I'm just curious - why are these releases not official mingw releases? In my opinion, releasing something, even if it is partly broken, is better than releasing nothing at all. People would report bugs, and things would progress. I don't know what the state of ada is - I only read this bug http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36207 and the final statement is "Ada is back in business now on mingw32, modulo some Makefile.in problems which I'm fixing now." However, this bug seems to be related to gcc 4.4, not 4.3. Regards, Lothar |
From: Doug S. <dsc...@ro...> - 2009-02-01 17:04:44
|
Lothar May wrote: > 2009/1/30 Doug Schaefer <dsc...@ro...>: > >> I use this: http://www.tdragon.net/recentgcc/ >> >> > > I'm just curious - why are these releases not official mingw releases? > In my opinion, releasing something, even if it is partly broken, is > better than releasing nothing at all. People would report bugs, and > things would progress. > > I don't know what the state of ada is - I only read this bug > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36207 and the final > statement is > > "Ada is back in business now on mingw32, modulo some Makefile.in problems which > I'm fixing now." > > However, this bug seems to be related to gcc 4.4, not 4.3. > > I've been following this list for a while now, and MinGW people please correct me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't appear to be a gcc maintainer on the MinGW project. That would imply there is no official MinGW release of gcc planned at the moment. Which is a very odd situation since as you mention Lothar, there does appear to be MinGW activity in the gcc project itself. And TDM is pretty much just a plain vanilla build of that upstream source. Which seems to be working fine for C++, if not for Ada. Doug. |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2009-02-03 13:24:33
|
Quoting Lothar May <lot...@go...>: > 2009/1/30 Doug Schaefer <dsc...@ro...>: >> >> I use this: http://www.tdragon.net/recentgcc/ >> > > I'm just curious - why are these releases not official mingw releases? > In my opinion, releasing something, even if it is partly broken, is > better than releasing nothing at all. People would report bugs, and > things would progress. > My first thought was to send you here http://www.mingw.org/wiki/TheNextRelease but that doesn't cover the loss of a maintainer. That said, John E.(tdragon) is a member of the MinGW development team. His link and downloads are his own and not official to MinGW. However, if Danny and Aaron do not object, I think it would be beneficial to ask John to upload current versions of GCC to the MinGW FRS. I will leave it up to the three mentioned people to coordinate with each other. > I don't know what the state of ada is - I only read this bug > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36207 and the final > statement is > > "Ada is back in business now on mingw32, modulo some Makefile.in > problems which > I'm fixing now." > > However, this bug seems to be related to gcc 4.4, not 4.3. > GCC bugs should really be reported to the bug tracker for GCC. The MinGW bug tracker can help us with bugs specific to MinGW but ultimately the bug and patch must be given to GCC for consideration. Earnie |
From: Vincent R. <fo...@sm...> - 2009-02-03 13:46:19
|
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 08:24:25 -0500, Earnie Boyd <ea...@us...> wrote: > Quoting Lothar May <lot...@go...>: > >> 2009/1/30 Doug Schaefer <dsc...@ro...>: >>> >>> I use this: http://www.tdragon.net/recentgcc/ >>> >> >> I'm just curious - why are these releases not official mingw releases? >> In my opinion, releasing something, even if it is partly broken, is >> better than releasing nothing at all. People would report bugs, and >> things would progress. >> I was able to generate a mingw(32bits) compiler from gcc trunk and with mingw-w64 repository. I haven't tested yet. I have a simple script for people interested. |
From: Lothar M. <lot...@go...> - 2009-02-03 14:12:54
|
2009/2/3 Earnie Boyd <ea...@us...>: > >>> I use this: http://www.tdragon.net/recentgcc/ >>> >> >> I'm just curious - why are these releases not official mingw releases? >> In my opinion, releasing something, even if it is partly broken, is >> better than releasing nothing at all. People would report bugs, and >> things would progress. >> > > My first thought was to send you here > http://www.mingw.org/wiki/TheNextRelease but that doesn't cover the > loss of a maintainer. Since you are mentioning this link, I'm afraid I strongly disagree with what is written there. Lack of time often can also be lack of motivation, since lack of time is often caused by different priorities. If people show interest in new releases, let's say in a friendly way, then this is far from being offensive. > That said, John E.(tdragon) is a member of the > MinGW development team. His link and downloads are his own and not > official to MinGW. However, if Danny and Aaron do not object, I think > it would be beneficial to ask John to upload current versions of GCC to > the MinGW FRS. I will leave it up to the three mentioned people to > coordinate with each other. That sounds great! >> I don't know what the state of ada is - I only read this bug >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36207 and the final >> statement is >> >> "Ada is back in business now on mingw32, modulo some Makefile.in >> problems which >> I'm fixing now." >> >> However, this bug seems to be related to gcc 4.4, not 4.3. >> > > GCC bugs should really be reported to the bug tracker for GCC. The > MinGW bug tracker can help us with bugs specific to MinGW but > ultimately the bug and patch must be given to GCC for consideration. ? I'm not reporting any bug. I was just pointing to that link for information concerning the state of ada in mingw. Regards, Lothar |
From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2009-02-03 15:52:31
|
Earnie Boyd wrote: > My first thought was to send you here > http://www.mingw.org/wiki/TheNextRelease but that doesn't cover the > loss of a maintainer. That said, John E.(tdragon) is a member of the > MinGW development team. His link and downloads are his own and not > official to MinGW. However, if Danny and Aaron do not object, I think > it would be beneficial to ask John to upload current versions of GCC to > the MinGW FRS. I will leave it up to the three mentioned people to > coordinate with each other. Be careful here. tdragon's builds have: a) --enable-fully-dynamic-string b) a backported version of the horrible 3.4.5 hack that allowed throwing exceptions across DLLs, even with a static libgcc.a. Danny says that this hack is so ugly it will /not/ be officially ported forward to 4.x. Furthermore, it is relatively intrusive, and due to a chain of causation is one of the major reasons why win32 builds were mostly non-functional for 4.0, 4.1, 4.2 and the early part of 4.3 development. I don't know if we want to "officially" go down that road again. It's too bad Aaron ran out of time while working on this last summer; his approach to the problem seemed much more in line with ongoing gcc development. But, the MAIN reason I mention those two issues, is they change the ABI from "stock" gcc-4.3, so that code compiled with tdragon's builds will not interop with code compiled with current mingw gcc-4.3-preview, or (presumably) any later mingw gcc derived from official sources. -- Chuck |
From: David G. <jdg...@am...> - 2009-02-05 00:46:38
|
Charles Wilson wrote: > ... snip ... > Be careful here. tdragon's builds have: > a) --enable-fully-dynamic-string > b) a backported version of the horrible 3.4.5 hack that allowed > throwing exceptions across DLLs, even with a static libgcc.a. Danny says > that this hack is so ugly it will /not/ be officially ported forward to > 4.x. Furthermore, it is relatively intrusive, and due to a chain of > causation is one of the major reasons why win32 builds were mostly > non-functional for 4.0, 4.1, 4.2 and the early part of 4.3 development. > I don't know if we want to "officially" go down that road again. It's > too bad Aaron ran out of time while working on this last summer; his > approach to the problem seemed much more in line with ongoing gcc > development. > > ... snip ... > what was Aaron's approach? |
From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2009-02-05 02:05:16
|
David Gressett wrote: > what was Aaron's approach? http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/WindowsGCCImprovementsGSoC2008 -- Chuck |
From: Lothar M. <lot...@go...> - 2009-02-09 11:02:05
|
2009/2/3, Charles Wilson <cwi...@us...>: > > Be careful here. tdragon's builds have: > a) --enable-fully-dynamic-string > b) a backported version of the horrible 3.4.5 hack that allowed > throwing exceptions across DLLs, even with a static libgcc.a. Danny says > that this hack is so ugly it will /not/ be officially ported forward to > 4.x. Furthermore, it is relatively intrusive, and due to a chain of > causation is one of the major reasons why win32 builds were mostly > non-functional for 4.0, 4.1, 4.2 and the early part of 4.3 development. > I don't know if we want to "officially" go down that road again. It's > too bad Aaron ran out of time while working on this last summer; his > approach to the problem seemed much more in line with ongoing gcc > development. > > But, the MAIN reason I mention those two issues, is they change the ABI > from "stock" gcc-4.3, so that code compiled with tdragon's builds will > not interop with code compiled with current mingw gcc-4.3-preview, or > (presumably) any later mingw gcc derived from official sources. > Well I don't see the point. The current gcc 4.3 preview release is - a preview. People cannot expect binary compatibility. And I assume that tdragon's builds would also be released as preview releases. As I see things at the moment, there are two options: 1. Leave everything as it is, and wait until someone implements a fix of the exception issues in a way that is accepted. This might take an extended period of time. 2. Try to achieve progress with what is available at least in other areas. I personally find it hard to accept that the exception issue is a blocker for any kind of new mingw gcc release. Especially since the current release 3.4.5 *also* has the "ugly hack". Why not stick to the "ugly hack" until a better way is found? Best regards, Lothar |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2009-02-09 13:01:28
|
Quoting Lothar May <lot...@go...>: > > I personally find it hard to accept that the exception issue is a > blocker for any kind of new mingw gcc release. Especially since the > current release 3.4.5 *also* has the "ugly hack". Why not stick to the > "ugly hack" until a better way is found? > Are you willing to put the time in to keep the ``ugly hack'' patch up to date and upload new binaries? I have no problem with you uploading this to MinGW's FRS as long as Keith agrees. Earnie |
From: Lothar M. <lot...@go...> - 2009-02-09 14:28:38
|
2009/2/9, Earnie Boyd <ea...@us...>: > > Quoting Lothar May <lot...@go...>: > >> >> I personally find it hard to accept that the exception issue is a >> blocker for any kind of new mingw gcc release. Especially since the >> current release 3.4.5 *also* has the "ugly hack". Why not stick to the >> "ugly hack" until a better way is found? >> > > Are you willing to put the time in to keep the ``ugly hack'' patch up > to date and upload new binaries? I have no problem with you uploading > this to MinGW's FRS as long as Keith agrees. > As has been pointed out some mails previously in this thread, there *are* new builds available, namely tdragon's. The whole point I was trying to make is that these builds should be released as mingw builds. Regards, Lothar |
From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2009-02-10 00:55:49
|
Lothar May wrote: > As has been pointed out some mails previously in this thread, there > *are* new builds available, namely tdragon's. The whole point I was > trying to make is that these builds should be released as mingw > builds. Logical fallacy. It takes more than just "X is available" for X to be hosted by the mingw site, and labeled as an official mingw product. Namely, a commitment to maintaining that product, and supporting the users of that product, via the mingw support forums and mailing lists. If I were to just grab tdragon's builds and post them up on the mingw site, I do not have the requisite knowledge to support them. I did not build them. I'm not sure I could reliably re-build a new updated/bugfixed version. And I certainly won't commit to helping other people use software I didn't write/port/compile. And finally, I do NOT want to troubleshoot ABI incompatibility issues for the next ten years because some impatient gimme-gimme leach importuned me to post a ported binary that includes a patch *that has been disavowed by its author*. I imagine you could replace "I" in the paragraph above with the name of every other member and participant in the mingw project, without disagreement. Now, maybe there's somebody out there who is more of a glutton for punishment than I, who IS willing to do those things. But until that sucker^Wperson volunteers, tdragon's builds are going to remain on tdragon's site. -- Chuck |
From: Doug S. <dsc...@ro...> - 2009-02-10 03:15:48
|
Charles Wilson wrote: > Lothar May wrote: > >> As has been pointed out some mails previously in this thread, there >> *are* new builds available, namely tdragon's. The whole point I was >> trying to make is that these builds should be released as mingw >> builds. >> > > Logical fallacy. > > It takes more than just "X is available" for X to be hosted by the mingw > site, and labeled as an official mingw product. Namely, a commitment to > maintaining that product, and supporting the users of that product, via > the mingw support forums and mailing lists. > > If I were to just grab tdragon's builds and post them up on the mingw > site, I do not have the requisite knowledge to support them. I did not > build them. I'm not sure I could reliably re-build a new > updated/bugfixed version. And I certainly won't commit to helping other > people use software I didn't write/port/compile. And finally, I do NOT > want to troubleshoot ABI incompatibility issues for the next ten years > because some impatient gimme-gimme leach importuned me to post a ported > binary that includes a patch *that has been disavowed by its author*. > > I imagine you could replace "I" in the paragraph above with the name of > every other member and participant in the mingw project, without > disagreement. > > Now, maybe there's somebody out there who is more of a glutton for > punishment than I, who IS willing to do those things. But until that > sucker^Wperson volunteers, tdragon's builds are going to remain on > tdragon's site. > > -- > Chuck > I fully understand your sentiment and it's hard to argue your point. I just wonder, without any plan on bringing gcc 4 to mingw, how long it will take until mingw ceases to matter. Why aren't the people working on mingw gcc 4 support interested in contributing and supporting their work on this site? Something's very wrong here. Doug. |
From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2009-02-10 19:10:33
|
On Tuesday 10 February 2009 03:15:43 Doug Schaefer wrote: > I just wonder, without any plan on bringing gcc 4 to mingw, how long > it will take until mingw ceases to matter. Why aren't the people > working on mingw gcc 4 support interested in contributing and > supporting their work on this site? Only those who are actually involved in this task can answer that. > Something's very wrong here. What is wrong is that there are many willing to make demands, and to criticise, without the slightest consideration for those who freely give of their spare time to make it happen. Where are all these vitriolic critics, when the call goes out for volunteers to assist in that effort? Let's not forget that all of these volunteers have other demands on their time, besides the MinGW project. Both Earnie and I have had to contend with family health problems recently. More that that you neither need nor have any right to know. In my case, these have prevented me from devoting as much time as I might otherwise have, to MinGW; I suspect that the same is true in Earnie's case, and very likely similarly disruptive issues have affected other project contributors. IIRC, when Danny Smith told us that he could no longer continue to carry the baton of GCC Maintainer and Release Manager, (for reasons which he chose to keep private), there was an underwhelming dearth of volunteers to pick it up, and carry it forward. Of the few who did step forward, only Aaron La Framboise appeared to have the necessary familiarity with GCC to actually be able to deliver the goods; sadly, Aaron has been extremely quiet for the past six months or so, and I have not been advised of his reasons, or even if he is still actively pursuing the project. Perhaps we need more volunteers, who are willing to *commit* to the effort needed, to assist Aaron in progressing his development plans. -- Regards, Keith. |
From: Vincent T. <vt...@un...> - 2009-02-10 19:20:49
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Keith Marshall wrote: > IIRC, when Danny Smith told us that he could no longer continue to > carry the baton of GCC Maintainer and Release Manager, (for reasons > which he chose to keep private), there was an underwhelming dearth of > volunteers to pick it up, and carry it forward. Of the few who did > step forward, only Aaron La Framboise appeared to have the necessary > familiarity with GCC to actually be able to deliver the goods; sadly, > Aaron has been extremely quiet for the past six months or so, and I > have not been advised of his reasons, or even if he is still actively > pursuing the project. Perhaps we need more volunteers, who are > willing to *commit* to the effort needed, to assist Aaron in > progressing his development plans. finally, I have the answer :-) thank you Vincent |
From: Doug S. <dsc...@ro...> - 2009-02-10 23:36:04
|
Keith Marshall wrote: > On Tuesday 10 February 2009 03:15:43 Doug Schaefer wrote: > >> I just wonder, without any plan on bringing gcc 4 to mingw, how long >> it will take until mingw ceases to matter. Why aren't the people >> working on mingw gcc 4 support interested in contributing and >> supporting their work on this site? >> > > Only those who are actually involved in this task can answer that. > > >> Something's very wrong here. >> > > What is wrong is that there are many willing to make demands, and to > criticise, without the slightest consideration for those who freely > give of their spare time to make it happen. Where are all these > vitriolic critics, when the call goes out for volunteers to assist in > that effort? > > Well, I didn't really want to say too much here. Being a project lead of an open source project myself I know how hard it is to get volunteers to contribute. I also know how important it is to build relationships with the people in my community so that they feel their contributions are appreciated, including suggestions on how to improve things. Suggestions do at times lead to real contributions. I just fear that people are being driven away from contributing. And that's too bad. Doug > Let's not forget that all of these volunteers have other demands on > their time, besides the MinGW project. Both Earnie and I have had to > contend with family health problems recently. More that that you > neither need nor have any right to know. In my case, these have > prevented me from devoting as much time as I might otherwise have, to > MinGW; I suspect that the same is true in Earnie's case, and very > likely similarly disruptive issues have affected other project > contributors. > > IIRC, when Danny Smith told us that he could no longer continue to > carry the baton of GCC Maintainer and Release Manager, (for reasons > which he chose to keep private), there was an underwhelming dearth of > volunteers to pick it up, and carry it forward. Of the few who did > step forward, only Aaron La Framboise appeared to have the necessary > familiarity with GCC to actually be able to deliver the goods; sadly, > Aaron has been extremely quiet for the past six months or so, and I > have not been advised of his reasons, or even if he is still actively > pursuing the project. Perhaps we need more volunteers, who are > willing to *commit* to the effort needed, to assist Aaron in > progressing his development plans. > |
From: Weddington, E. <ewe...@cs...> - 2009-02-10 23:48:07
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Schaefer [mailto:dsc...@ro...] > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 4:36 PM > To: MinGW Users List > Subject: Re: [Mingw-users] status of the gcc 4.3.0 port > > Keith Marshall wrote: > > On Tuesday 10 February 2009 03:15:43 Doug Schaefer wrote: > > > >> I just wonder, without any plan on bringing gcc 4 to > mingw, how long > >> it will take until mingw ceases to matter. Why aren't the people > >> working on mingw gcc 4 support interested in contributing and > >> supporting their work on this site? > >> > > > > Only those who are actually involved in this task can answer that. > > > > > >> Something's very wrong here. > >> > > > > What is wrong is that there are many willing to make > demands, and to > > criticise, without the slightest consideration for those who freely > > give of their spare time to make it happen. Where are all these > > vitriolic critics, when the call goes out for volunteers to > assist in > > that effort? > > > > > > Well, I didn't really want to say too much here. Being a > project lead of > an open source project myself I know how hard it is to get > volunteers to > contribute. I also know how important it is to build > relationships with > the people in my community so that they feel their contributions are > appreciated, including suggestions on how to improve things. > Suggestions > do at times lead to real contributions. I just fear that people are > being driven away from contributing. And that's too bad. > > Doug > I will second Doug's statement. I too am a project lead or contributor on multiple open source projects on SF and Savannah. I wish I had more time to devote to mingw, but I don't have the time, so I relegate myself to being an interested user. I'm saddened that sometimes users are perceived as only taking and not giving back. But I definitely understand that personal issues come first, and that volunteers are hard to come by. I thought this thread was started with intent of just simply trying to find out the status of the gcc 4.3.0 port. Eric |
From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2009-02-10 19:10:24
|
On Tuesday 10 February 2009 00:55:36 Charles Wilson wrote: > Lothar May wrote: > > As has been pointed out some mails previously in this thread, > > there *are* new builds available, namely tdragon's. The whole > > point I was trying to make is that these builds should be > > released as mingw builds. > > Logical fallacy. > > It takes more than just "X is available" for X to be hosted by the > mingw site, and labeled as an official mingw product. Namely, a > commitment to maintaining that product, and supporting the users of > that product, via the mingw support forums and mailing lists. Hear, hear. Eariler in the thread, I note that Earnie invited this same Lothar May to step in, and commit to providing such support; his response was to sidestep the issue, by completely ignoring the invitation, while still continuing with the "*you* should do this, and *you* should do that" theme. Why should anyone but *he* be the one to do "this" or "that"? > If I were to just grab tdragon's builds and post them up on the > mingw site, I do not have the requisite knowledge to support them. > I did not build them. I'm not sure I could reliably re-build a new > updated/bugfixed version. And I certainly won't commit to helping > other people use software I didn't write/port/compile. And finally, > I do NOT want to troubleshoot ABI incompatibility issues for the > next ten years because some impatient gimme-gimme leach importuned > me to post a ported binary that includes a patch *that has been > disavowed by its author*. > > I imagine you could replace "I" in the paragraph above with the > name of every other member and participant in the mingw project, > without disagreement. Certainly none, from this participant, (and administrator). > Now, maybe there's somebody out there who is more of a glutton for > punishment than I, who IS willing to do those things. But until > that sucker^Wperson volunteers, tdragon's builds are going to > remain on tdragon's site. Absolutely agreed. -- Regards, Keith. |
From: Matěj T. <mat...@gm...> - 2009-02-10 22:47:20
|
> Perhaps we need more volunteers, who are > willing to *commit* to the effort needed, to assist Aaron in > progressing his development plans. What about telling it to the world on the MinGW website? Like "we need people who can do this and that" etc.? Actually people who like to make websites could benefit MinGW a lot since the web is quite chaotic and it is difficult to find useful and up-to-date information there. Turning the site into a spam-protected wiki would certainly help since people could contribute super easily, hm? Still 'someone' always has to make the first step :-) |