From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14248 invoked by alias); 21 May 2003 03:22:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 14154 invoked from network); 21 May 2003 03:22:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 May 2003 03:22:56 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4L3MuH22966 for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 23:22:56 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4L3MuI20808 for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 23:22:56 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (vpn50-10.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.10]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4L3Muo27564 for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 23:22:56 -0400 Received: by redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 201) id 0ABD96BCA2; Tue, 20 May 2003 23:22:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 03:27:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: MinGW (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Variation on an Alternate policy for obsoleting targets) Message-ID: <20030521032244.GA24962@redhat.com> Reply-To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Mail-Followup-To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <000401c31e57$32c69910$3c9fd783@northwood> <200305200008.h4K08vR08264@greed.delorie.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200305200008.h4K08vR08264@greed.delorie.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01917.txt.bz2 On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 08:08:57PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: >>However, there are some platforms which are supported by non-gcc >>developers and aren't useful as-is from FSF sources, yet the platform's >>users desperately wish that gcc would work as-is. > >The solution to that, is to make those non-gcc developers gcc >maintainers. > >>Given MinGW's importance as the only real way to run gcc on Windows, I >>don't see why it's not even a secondary platform for gcc. > >So make Danny the MinGW maintainer for GCC. I've been offering this to Danny for some time. He is not interested. I'm not sure what the problem is here. Danny has been pretty good about getting mingw/cygwin changes into the trunk. Where possible, I approve the changes as quickly as possible. From the MAINTAINERS file: windows, cygwin, mingw Christopher Faylor cgf@redhat.com The existence of a mingw patch set should not be a cause for alarm. We're working on getting mingw and cygwin aligned with gcc trunk. For a while we had a branch in gcc for development but I dropped that due to time constraint. However, the merging of changes from the patches/branch is happening. It's just happening in volunteer time, like most free software projects. I'm not sure why mingw is being talked about as if it was a secondary platform. From my point of view it receives a lot of high quality attention from Danny. cgf