X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4A35DEA7.10307@cygwin.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:39:51 -0400 From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090320 Remi/2.0.0.21-1.fc8.remi Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Installation problems References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On 06/15/2009, Neanderthelle Jones wrote: > (1) Headers such as should be there when gcc & > Co. are downloaded. I personally know that Cygwin is 32 bit. But the > program build needs to be able to find that out portably, not by a > Cygwin-specific hack. It compiles on Linux: why not on Cygwin? Looks like it's in 1.7, though you'll have to pull the source to get it. > If there is some reason they can't be provided, If something is missing and you need it, then you're free to submit a patch . This is an open-source project after all. > if Cygwin is necessarily defective in that way, if it is necessary to buy > some Microsoft programming language compiler to get them, okay, but why was > I not told? Why is there nothing about it on the Cygwin site? Why do > I need to spend many hours discovering independently something that in > that case is well-known to cognoscenti? Oh, sorry. Forget about my pointer to PTC. It's clear you feel cheated and just want to moan about how this open-source project has wronged you. In that case, the proper link is: It's been withheld since there has been a sneaking suspicion for years that you might need it and we didn't want to deprive you of this opportunity to complain about it. But wait, that would make us nice and considerate. Hm, I guess we can't win on this one... -- Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 216 Dalton Rd. (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746 _____________________________________________________________________ A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/