Re: djgpp packages could be dropped severely outdated

Hello,
perhaps, you may find interesting my updated packages of DJGPP tools
for CYGWIN in my repository of packages.

https://github.com/carlo-bramini/packages-cygwin/tree/main/djgpp-binutils
https://github.com/carlo-bramini/packages-cygwin/tree/main/djgpp-gcc
https://github.com/carlo-bramini/packages-cygwin/tree/main/djgpp-runtime

These are the latest version of the toolchain at this time.

Sincerely,

Carlo Bramini.

Il giorno mer 27 ago 2025 alle ore 20:40 Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps
<[email protected]> ha scritto:
>
> 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)
>
>
> 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 * and, out of date (version is less than current upstream version)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