Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
content-class:	urn:content-classes:message
Subject:	RE: setup changes to build standalone
MIME-Version:	1.0
Date:	Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:11:53 +1000
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
Message-ID:	<FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5F06@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	"Charles Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Cc:	<cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g3Q5C0f25999

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu] 
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 2:12 PM
 
 
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/mingwrep/
 
Thanks.
  
> >>I wonder if we need a "mingw-libs" package.
> >>
> > 
> > Yes, please, please, yes. I would really really love it if 
> some of the 
> > common libs (zlib, bz2lib, stdc++) where available in a setup.exe 
> > installable pacakge.
> 
> 
> Yes, I like this too -- but I'm nervous about it growing ridiculously 
> large.  What if (eventually) setup.ini turns into XML?  Do we put a 
> mingw build of libxml into 'mingw-libs'?  How far does this go? 
> (visions of full{mingw}.exe)

glib + foo + bar + ...

If this sort of expansion were to occur, I'd suggest we take the
split-setup option and have a bootstrapping setup that is essentially
what we have today, but is only run once - ever. Then after that a
maintenance setup that is able to use cygwin linked tools.
 
> OTOH, we've already discussed (and discarded, thank g-d) the idea of 
> (for instance) the zlib maintainer providing both a 
> cygwin-setup-installable zlib package (/usr/bin/cygz.dll, 
> /usr/lib/libz.[dll|a]) and a cygwin-setup-installable 
> mingw-zlib package 
> (/usr/bin/mgwz.dll, /usr/lib/mingw/libz.[dll|a]).  Ditto 
> bzip2, libxml, 
> ...  we are not a mingw-porting factory.

Agreed.
 
> whatever happened to the idea of an official cygwin package, that 
> contained a true cygwin-host, mingw-target cross compiler?  Didn't 
> somebody or other volunteer to provide that?

I recall Danny talking about a gcc v 3.1 for April, but I'm not sure if
he meant as a cygwin package or as something else...
 
> > It really depends on what you want to do. Some stuff it does
> > spectalularly well, some things it has trouble with. With the 'cross
> > compiling but not' approach, it would almost certainly have 
> some trouble
> > :}.
> 
> see above, true cross compiler...

Yup. In fact gcc -mno-cygwin is close enough that automake won't be
confused... as long as it's told --host= :}.

Rob

- Raw text -