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: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:37:42 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Has sys/stat.h changed
Message-ID: <20010219213742.E23112@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <VA DOT 00000664 DOT 00c93eee AT thesoftwaresource DOT com> <3A91984B DOT 8F87DBCB AT yahoo DOT com> <20010219174210 DOT A21171 AT redhat DOT com> <3A91D56A DOT FA7C5FC9 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20010219212457 DOT A23112 AT redhat DOT com> <3A91D820 DOT 73896AC1 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <3A91D820.73896AC1@ece.gatech.edu>; from cwilson@ece.gatech.edu on Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:36:16PM -0500

On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:36:16PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> 
>> Maybe it is easier to just update gcc rather than 27 different packages
>> which include -I/usr/include/wNNapi, though.
>
>That was my point.  Since with -mwin32 you get /usr/include/wNNapi
>included automatically, it's a non-issue there.  My argument was
>targetted at the need for just one packaqe -- gcc -- to "know" where
>windows.h lived, even for -mno-win32.  As much as the need is personally
>distasteful, since it obscures the "clean" separation between "native"
>and "cygwin".  If there is such a separation. :-P

I really would rather keep the separation but I also have a distaste of
trying to force other projects to change because I made a random change
that affects them.

Gcc does that from time to time.  Their reasons are always technically
sound but that doesn't stop me from grumbling.

In this case, I think that I, or someone, would have to make sure that
sources.redhat.com stuff compiles correctly before I move gcc to a
"non-testing" status.

cgf