Re: MinGW (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Variation on an Alternate policy for obsoleting targets)

[Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>]

> 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.

Cygwin is of course an option (free for those not impacted by the GPL,
commercial license available for the rest).  However, the rules for
secondary platforms require a capable volunteer to sign up to be the
tester and coordinator for any needed bug fixes.  If a MinGW champion is
willing to take on that role, it will happen.  If not, it won't.

> I live in mortal fear that some day the MinGW developers will lose
> interest/be hit by a truck/whatever, and gcc will suddenly become unusable
> on Windows. Linux is great - I just put it on my second computer - but I
> think it's important to keep gcc functional on Windows, if for nothing else
> than to act as a gateway for new developers to get into the world of gcc.

OK.  What are you willing to do about it?

By that I mean that you, personally, could work to make things better if
you so desire.  You could be downloading CVS versions, running them,
reporting on problems, and asking for help with fixes.

Demanding that active GCC developers help isn't going to do anything;
their plates are already full.