Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] New release of runtime?

[Keith M. <kei...@us...>]

On Monday 11 September 2006 3:00 pm, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 08:02:18AM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> >Quoting Keith Marshall <kei...@us...>:
> >>BTW, I've proven that patch for MinGW only, and haven't yet committed
> >>it.  I asked if it might break anything for Cygwin, but have not
> >>received any reply from their developers.  Maybe I should just check
> >> it in anyway, and see if they scream?  I'd like to get the
> >> unnecessary cruft out of the CVS copies, before we publish, if we do
> >> decide to go for 3.10.1.
> >
> >The surest way to find that out is to commit the patch.  You'll know
> > in a few hours if it breaks a Cygwin build.
>
> That strikes me as a pretty unfriendly way to approach this.
>
> You might notice that Corinna submitted her patch for consideration.  I
> don't see any reason for anyone in the MinGW project to be any less
> courteous.

And I share that opinion, which is why I did submit my patch for comment, 
more that a week ago.  The only comment I received was your own, which 
didn't really address the patch, but expressed your disagreement with my 
view on the use of aclocal to compile aclocal.m4.  I don't wish to make a 
big deal of that disagreement, but I remain of my original opinion; we 
will just have to agree to disagree.  However, I would just like to point 
out that the maintainer of aclocal himself says, in the latest automake 
texinfo documentation, that aclocal should never be invoked other than 
implicitly by autoreconf.  To reinforce the point, I would refer you to 
the aclocal.m4 in the w32api module; this comprises 831 lines generated 
by aclocal, not one of which serves any useful purpose whatsoever, for 
nothing therein is ever referenced by configure.in -- you might just as 
well delete aclocal.m4 in its entirety, for it just isn't used.

But to return to the patch; on the assumption that no contrary comment in 
over a week amounts to tacit approval, I committed it yesterday, and I 
haven't seen any cries of `foul'.

Regards,
Keith.