Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/04/07/21:28:27
--- Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at
08:29:29AM +1000, Danny Smith wrote:
> >maintainer. There are currently bugs in binutils with respect to ld
> >--shared (or at least there was two weeks ago and has been since 17
> [UTC]
> >December).
>
> URL? I don't see anything obvious in the subject.
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-01/msg00477.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-02/msg00624.html
>
> >Related frustrations: ReactOs team has submitted several relatively
> >non-intrusive patches for useful windres improvements that have not been
> >seriously reviewed. My patch for --exclude-all-libs lingered into
> >forgetfullness. Ditto for a ReactOs patch for checksums in
> pe-executables.
>
> Does the ReactOS team have assignments on file with the FSF?
I believe Eric Kohl does. I don't know about Caspar (windres patch
submitter)
>
> >Chris asked the question a while ago: "Wanna be a binutils maintainer".
>
> Yeah. I asked for binutils maintainer and binutils and gcc cygwin
> package maintainers. gcc 3.1 presents a challenge in that some of my
> local hacks will no longer work. I have an idea about how to kludge
> around that fact without impacting the rest of gcc but I don't really
> have much time for much programming anymore.
>
> However, I'll ask nickc if he minds if I start trying to clear out some
> of the binutils issues.
>
> Danny, do you mind checking things in, if I get approval?
Does write access to winsup also give me write[-after-approval] access to
binutils? If so, I am happy checking in windres patches. The checksum
patch is a bit more intrusive into BFD-land and needs review.
Or, we can
> split the task. The windres changes should be noncontroversial. The
> only problem is the assignment one, AFAICT.
>
> cgf
Danny
http://www.sold.com.au - SOLD.com.au Auctions
- 1,000s of Bargains!
- Raw text -