Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:36:30 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Texinfo-4.0
Message-ID:	<20001122203630.A13867@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<20001122224758 DOT 2391 DOT qmail AT web115 DOT yahoomail DOT com> <20001122175741 DOT A12681 AT redhat DOT com> <3A1C73C5 DOT DAFD322A AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To:	<3A1C73C5.DAFD322A@ece.gatech.edu>; from cwilson@ece.gatech.edu on Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 08:32:53PM -0500

On Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 08:32:53PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
>> However, I'm willing to be swayed on the issue.  If everyone else agrees
>> that changing the default is the right decision, I'll be happy to do it.
>
>I'm in favor of removing -DWIN32 / -DWINNT from the specs file for
>normal gcc compiles (they *would* be defined for -mno-cygwin compiles). 
>However, the real issue is Red Hat's paying cygwin customers -- how
>would *they* react to this change?

Hmm.  Excellent point.  We don't ship gcc 2.95.2 for our customers,
however, I don't know if I want to change defaults for our customers.

Earnie, have you tried building an entire source tree including gcc,
gdb, binutils, expect, dejagnu, etc.?  I wonder if there are gotchas
there.

cgf

- Raw text -