From: Keith M. <kei...@to...> - 2007-03-19 13:32:27
|
Following up on my own earlier posting: > Giovanni Bajo wrote, quoting Greg Chicares: >>> 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. > > Thanks for your quick attention, to both of the above. However, looking at your site: http://www.develer.com/oss/GccWinBinaries just now, (2006-03-19 12:46 GMT), I still see: | For unclear reasons, http://www.mingw.org still has a very old | version of GCC, and I could not find any public statement about when | a newer GCC version will be released. This simply isn't true. The reasons are *very* clear, and have been stated several times, on this very list, in recent months. Let me reiterate, yet again: There remain a *significant* number of regression test failures, in respect of *all* GCC-4.x variants targetting the Win32 platform. Our GCC Release Manager, Danny Smith, (who AFAIK is also a GCC Maintainer for the Win32 branch), has publicly stated that until the number of such regressions has been significantly reduced, he will not sanction an official release for the Win32 platform. To my knowledge, Danny has not yet seen sufficient improvement in the situation, to make any public commitment to an official release of GCC-4.x for Win32. Thus, *any* GCC-4.x releases you see touted on any Internet site, as being production ready for Win32 are, by definition, unofficial releases, and may not be stable. While you are completely free to publish such releases, I'd suggest that you do so with a clearly stated caveat to their possible instability. While you do make it clear that the MinGW Project has in no way endorsed your release, I don't think you make it suffiently clear that it is an experimental release, derived from a code base which may not yet be suitably stable for production use. Regards, Keith. |