Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com From: "Chris Telting" To: Subject: RE: Instructions for rebuilding all the cygwin tools? Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:04:43 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-reply-to: <20000726184037.A2137@cygnus.com> Importance: Normal > There is no way to build everything at once. That is not the way that > the distribution was made. You've probably seen individual announcments > for individual packages, i.e., each piece was built individually. > > Some pieces may fit together, like you may be able to drop gcc, gdb, > binutils, fileutils, and winsup into a directory and type > 'configure/make' but you're going to run into problems because of the > various versions of Makefile.in, libiberty, and other common files and > directories that will be found in each directory. > > >All I really want is the equivelent instructions found in the FAQ for > >b20.1 for rebuilding the tools. Also links to get the tex2html and > >other tools which some of the packages need in order to do make install > >and so fourth. > > The instructions are still generally correct for GNU packages. Since > we're now including more stuff than the B20.1 net release and we > are no longer doing monolithic releases, there is no longer a > "one size fits all" set of instructions for rebuilding. > > As far as finding tools, I'd suggest looking at ftp.gnu.org and > http://www.freshmeat.net/ . > > >The simple and straightforward instuctions for compiling and setting up > >everything. BTW does the "latest" directory even get a version number? > > There are no simple instructions possible. Sorry. > > I don't know what you are referring to about latest but if you are asking > if the latest directory is somehow cygwin "B23" then the answer is "no". > We abandoned the monolithic versioning scheme several months ago. The > cygwin DLL is version 1.1.2 (soon to be 1.1.3). All of the other packages > have their own version numbers. > > (FAQ ALERT) Indeed you should add this information to the FAQ. I am satisfied now. I was just wondering if I was making it harder than it was since 20.1 was monolithic. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com