From:	cjjohans AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi (Carl J R Johansson)
Subject:	Re: CYGWIN.DLL
19 Jan 1997 14:46:35 -0800 :
Approved:	cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
Distribution:	cygnus
Message-ID:	<Pine.SOL.3.91.970119213805.19517A-100000.cygnus.gnu-win32@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Sender:	cjjohans AT kruuna DOT Helsinki DOT FI
Original-To:	gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<970118054327.27257@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Original-Sender:	owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com

On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Ben Constable wrote:

> > * Some people disagree on whether or not static or dynamic libraries 
> >   are better.
> > * Static libraries _ARE_ easier to distribute (though larger) end
> >   executables, and are a little better at preventing library version
> skew.
> > * Dynamic libraries are more memory efficient, more space efficient, but 
> >   can (though are not neccessarily) be more annoying to distribute for a 
> >   single command-line style utility (like grep or something), if the DLL
> >   isn't pre-installed.  (I personally believe for applications which
> >   are already building their own directory tree, installing multiple
> files,
> >   etc...just use the DLL.  But not everyone agrees).
> > * People will have their own opinions.
> > * There are valid reasons why the cygwin.dll is as large as it is.
> > * cygwin is intended as a way to port UNIX programs to Windows.  The
> >   large number of functions in the DLL are required for this stated end.
> > * If you want a solution that doesn't rely on the DLL, check out the 
> >   Minimalist GNU-WIN32 kit.
> > 
> > That about sum it up?  If so, then let's get back to normal list 
> > discussion. :)
> 
> I agree with all of this. But what of the idea of splitting up the DLL into
> smaller DLL files?
> 
Might make distribution of (smaller) programs easier and shouldn't break 
anything else, but is probably not a priority.


cj
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".

- Raw text -