From: Giovanni B. <ra...@de...> - 2007-03-19 07:58:27
|
On 19/03/2007 6.56, Greg Chicares wrote: > That page says: > | [...] For some reason, http://www.mingw.org still has a very > | old version of GCC, > > Neither MinGW nor Cygwin has yet released a gcc-4.x port. The > reason, AIUI, is that there are still too many regression errors > to meet their standards of reliability. It's incredibly hard to find such an information around. Do you have a pointer to a place where this has been publicly discussed? > | and developers of MinGW seem to ignore mails that ask about > | new versions. > > I had thought otherwise--are you sure that's correct? I know my (2 or 3) mails have been ignored. > Why not instead just say that MinGW and Cygwin haven't released > gcc-4.x because it still has problems with ms windows, but you're > offering prebuilt binaries for anyone who wants to experiment > with them anyway? That much should be noncontroversial. Yes. You are right that that sentence has a bad tone and should be removed. I just edited the paragraph as per your suggestion. > And why not let your users know that your files aren't sanctioned > by the MinGW project, so that they won't come here expecting > support? Yes, better make that explicit. Done! Thanks for the feedback. > Are you sure you understand what the GPL requires when you > distribute binaries? I think I did. I linked to the packages I used to build that installer. GCC itself was compiled by a third party but its page contains links to the original GCC source code they used plus the single patch they applied (from GCC Bugzilla). The other packages come from MinGW's own sf.net. The installer itself is built from a single script which I develop within a SVN repostitory. I'm trying to get things fixed so that the SVN repository is made public. Meanwhile, that page contains an explicit "written offer": if anybody wants the installer's source script, just ask me. I think everything adheres to the GPL. If you think otherwise, would you please point me to what you believe being the violation? -- Giovanni Bajo |