Re: sourceware and git

[Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowitz@cygwin.com>]

On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 17:33 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> As far as tagging is concerned, I don't see any reason why newlib
> should be tagged when cygwin is tagged.  Cygwin shouldn't care about
> newlib tags.

What I don't understand yet is why our situation is different than
binutils-gdb, the two of which also have separate release schedules and
yet share enough code that they chose to use a single repository.  Given
that, IIUC:

* newlib and libgloss are developed in tandem;

* newlib and libgloss are meant to be built together;

* newlib and libgloss require the top-level configury in order to build;

then wouldn't the most straightforward (and reliable) method for
newlib/libgloss be to have a single git repo matching the layout of cvs
co newlib?

As for cygwin's usage of newlib, since pulling in newlib would end up
including libgloss and the top level configury, the only difference I
see between a joint newlib/libgloss/cygwin repo and a separate cygwin
repo would be that the former would not require any changes to the
cygwin build system, where the latter would.

Either way, yes, a cygwin checkout (or source tarball) would be somewhat
larger then it is now by virtue of the addition of libgloss to the
checkout.  (The top-level configury already skips building libgloss for
cygwin even when present.)  If the newlib folks don't mind the same
(although winsup is smaller than libgloss, so it's not quite an equal
tradeoff :-) ), then following the lead of binutils-gdb and using a
single repository makes a lot of sense to me.


Yaakov