Re: djgpp packages could be dropped severely outdated
Brian Inglis via Cygwin-apps <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.cygwin.applications |
|---|---|
| Organization | Systematic Software |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2025-08-27 12:39, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> On 25/08/2025 00:07, Brian Inglis via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>> Only depend on each other:
>>
>> $ cygcheck-dep -cNqS djgpp-{gcc-core,binutils,runtime}
>> djgpp-gcc-core: is recursively needed for ( djgpp-gcc-ada djgpp-gcc- fortran
>> djgpp-gcc-g++ djgpp-gcc-objc djgpp-gcc-objc++ )
>> djgpp-binutils: is recursively needed for ( djgpp-gcc-ada djgpp-gcc- core
>> djgpp-gcc-fortran djgpp-gcc-g++ djgpp-gcc-objc djgpp-gcc-objc++ )
>> djgpp-runtime: is recursively needed for ( djgpp-gcc-ada djgpp-gcc- core
>> djgpp-gcc-fortran djgpp-gcc-g++ djgpp-gcc-objc djgpp-gcc-objc++ )
>>
>> $ cygcheck -p 'djgpp-\(gcc-core\|binutils\|runtime\)'
>> Found 7 matches for djgpp-\(gcc-core\|binutils\|runtime\)
>> djgpp-binutils-2.25-2-src - djgpp-binutils-src: Binutils for DJGPP toolchain
>> (source)
>> djgpp-runtime-2.05-1-src - djgpp-runtime-src: DJGPP toolchain C runtime (source)
>> djgpp-binutils-debuginfo-2.25-2 - djgpp-binutils-debuginfo: Debug info for
>> djgpp-binutils
>> djgpp-binutils-2.25-2 - djgpp-binutils: Binutils for DJGPP toolchain
>> djgpp-gcc-core-5.3.0-1 - djgpp-gcc-core: GCC for DJGPP toolchain (C)
>> djgpp-gcc-core-5.4.0-1 - djgpp-gcc-core: GCC for DJGPP toolchain (C)
>> djgpp-runtime-2.05-1 - djgpp-runtime: DJGPP toolchain C runtime
>>
>> Current actual djgpp versions are 2.35.1 binutils and gcc 14.2; see:
>>
>> https://www.delorie.com/pub/djgpp/current/v2gnu/?C=M;O=D
>
> Yeah, I agreed last time [1] :S.
>
>
> Feel free to vault the packages and remove it from the package list.
>
> (I try to remember to also check that the packaging git repo history is up to
> date before doing those steps, as well)
Checked latest versions in repo and two gcc versions still available: vaulted all.
> More generally, perhaps we need to clarify the policy on removing unmaintained
> packages from a vague "may be pulled" in [2].
>
> How about: packages which are
> * unmaintained
> * and, out of date (version is less than current upstream version)
> * and, aren't in the Base category or a dependency of something in the Base
> category
> * and, more than X years old
> will be removed.
>
>
> The report at [3] might help determine the impact of various values for X.
>
>
> [1] https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-apps/2023-September/043147.html
> [2] https://cygwin.com/packaging-contributors-guide.html
> [3] https://cygwin.com/packages/reports/unmaintained.html
--
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
La perfection est atteinte Perfection is achieved
non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter not when there is no more to add
mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retrancher but when there is no more to cut
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry