Re: Pulling the switch on GCC4.

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Sep 27 21:48, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
> 
> >   As things stand I've only rolled one set of packages, so it will throw the
> > switch for both.  I guess that could be a bit inconvenient for 1.5 users who
> > will have to add -static if they want full C++ compliance.  I could change it
> > to only throw the switch for 1.7 if people think that's desirable, this is
> > just the sort of thing I wanted to get people's feelings on.
> 
> At this point, as
> 
> 1) it seems that the Smart Folks have figured out how to address the
> last known release blocker for 1.7 (the whole UTF filename thing), so
> 1.7.1 should be "relatively" imminent -- my personal supposition,
> carries no official weight, yadda yadda yadda
> 
> 2) your effort is at a premium
> 
> 3) Those who disagree with "throwing the switch" for 1.5 can easily
> switch back using the alternatives system
> 
> I say keep on as you have planned: one package to rule them all, and
> throw the switch for both.

Agreed on all points.  Except you are shying at another gold star in
which case you should keep gcc-3 the default, Dave.


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat