Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Message-Id: <199911121036.FAA14670@dagda.sunflower.com>
From: "Doug Wyatt" <dwyatt AT sunflower DOT com>
To: Chris faylor <cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 05:37:51 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Building cygwin32_ipc-1.03 for v1.0 - questions about v1
Reply-to: dwyatt AT sunflower DOT com
In-reply-to: <19991109154351.C3918@cygnus.com>
References: <199911091904 DOT OAA15801 AT dagda DOT sunflower DOT com>; from Doug Wyatt on Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 02:05:48PM -0600
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a)

Thanks for the info !

I guess I've seen prior references to the relationship between Cygwin
and MSVC, but I come from a long Unix background, and my referents
tend to be from that perspective.

I still tend to balk at /opt for package installs but that seems to be the
current trend. The /usr/local directory is the default for Gnu software, and
/usr/contrib rather than /contrib is more traditional.  I guess I would have
made a /src/contrib instead of a /contribsrc, and a /src/contrib/patches
instead of /contribpatches.  But, forgive me, I'm just being nit-picky.  I can
organize my installation to my own liking, without asking that Cygnus do
it for me.

As for sending questions to cygwin-info AT Cygnus DOT com, ...after purchasing
my v1 CD, I sent them a query about the added tax, since I thought that
there has been a moratorium on taxes on Internet purchases.  I received
no response.  No problem, the CD is still worth the money.

With regard to the manuals, Corinna pointed out that online docs for Linux
are adequate, and they are - I hadn't thought of looking there.

The thing about coexistence of v1 and a development tree is that I'd like to
keep them completely separate, rather than intermingled.  I consider v1 as
my stable release, for now.  I'd like a wholly separate directory tree for
gcc 2.95.2, and for playing around with things that might break something.
You're right, I can probably play around with the PATH to do most of what
I looking for.  I did check to see if the symlinks allowed embedded $VAR
references, and they apparently don't.

It just seemed that more flexible use of the registry would open up
possibilities.

Regards,
Doug Wyatt


> On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 02:05:48PM -0600, Doug Wyatt wrote:
> >I just built the Cygwin IPC package under the v1.0 release.  In the process
> >I found it required wintypes.h, which was not included in the v1 CD pkg.  I
> >extracted the file from the tgz of my former b20.1 setup and with that the
> >build was able to complete.
> >
> >Why is the v1 release so divergent from b20.1 development -
> >   e.g. - different set of includes, fairly non-standard directory
> >            structure, etc.,
> 
> The v1 layout mimics the structure of MSVC more closely.
> 
> I don't know what you mean by "non-standard".  The only somewhat strange
> thing about the CD is the existence of a /usr/i686-cygwin/include directory.
> This is not completely non-standard since linux has something similar but it
> is different from a lot of other UNIX installations.
> 
> >Are there any plans for formal patches, updates or new releases
> >following up on v1.0?  Even under some kind of paid support plan?
> 
> We will be providing patches and updates and new releases.  We don't have
> any formal plans yet, however.
> 
> As far as paid support plans are concerned -- that's a question for
> cygwin-info AT cygnus DOT com .  This forum should be limited to technical
> questions.
> 
> >Can the use of the registry be modified to allow coexistence of v1.0 and
> >a development (b20.1 - b21) installation at the same time?  It seems at
> >the moment you can only have one or the other operational at one time
> >by reconfiguring the (single) registry mount table. A "[/whatever]/etc/fstab"
> >file might be a good thing to tie the registry entries to.
> 
> If you use the DLL and mount from B20 they should work fine.  I switch
> back and forth all of the time when I want to check how something works
> on B20.  There is no need to play with the registry.  The older B20
> binaries will work with the new 1.0 DLL.  The new 1.0 binaries *will
> not* work with the B20 DLL.
> 
> You can't easily use *both* DLLs at the same time but I'm not sure why
> you'd want to.
> 
> >Oh, and one other thing - why no man2 entries?
> 
> Because no one wrote any?
> 
> cgf
> 
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
> 



==========================================================
Doug Wyatt                    E-Mail: dwyatt AT sunflower DOT com
Sys Admin                      Phone: 785-843-4099
Kohlman Systems Research, Inc.   Fax: 785-843-6459
319 Perry St., Lawrence, KS  66044  USA

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com