On 01/17/2013 02:38 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 01/17/13 13:27, John W. Eaton wrote:
>>
>> Do you expect this to continue to work for older versions of mingw?
>
> No, that hasn't been the practice in the past. I pushed the following
> to the doc to make it clearer:
>
> ---
> doc/gnulib-intro.texi | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/doc/gnulib-intro.texi b/doc/gnulib-intro.texi
> index 7b3ff8a..69d6e08 100644
> --- a/doc/gnulib-intro.texi
> +++ b/doc/gnulib-intro.texi
> @@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ unsupported on mingw: @code{mgetgroups},
> @code{getugroups}, @code{idcache},
> @code{pt_chown}, @code{grantpt}, @code{pty}, @code{savewd},
> @code{mkancesdirs}, @code{mkdir-p}, @code{euidaccess}, @code{faccessat}.
> The versions of Windows that are supported are Windows XP and newer.
> +Only the latest version of mingw is tested; older versions are not supported.There are two flavors of mingw; mingw32 (32-bit only) and mingw64 (both 32- and 64-bit support), with slightly different release schedules. Fedora used to ship mingw32; but as of Fedora 17, ships only mingw64 (but both bit-widths). Meanwhile, cygwin ships cross-compilers for both flavors, but tends to lag behind when upstream mingw releases are made. All of my mingw testing has been via cross-compilation under Cygwin or Fedora, rather than either upstream mingw proper, so stating that we support _only_ the latest mingw may be a bit too strong or oversimplified. If someone wants to provide a mingw patch for a currently shipping mingw cross-compilation environment (even if it is not the latest upstream mingw), I'm sure we can accommodate that. On the other hand, I don't have any heartburn with this wording; after all, we only fix problems if they get reported, and most people reporting mingw problems are using relatively new builds. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
