From:	jjf AT dsbc DOT icl DOT co DOT uk (J.J.Farrell)
Subject:	Re: The mail list in a news group
23 Jan 1997 03:58:39 -0800 :
Approved:	cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
Distribution:	cygnus
Message-ID:	<199701231005.14848.0.cygnus.gnu-win32@dsbc.icl.co.uk>
Original-To:	cjjohans AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi (Carl J R Johansson)
Original-Cc:	jqb AT netcom DOT com, gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SOL.3.91.970122193517.22101A-100000@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> from "Carl J R Johansson" at Jan 22, 97 08:15:32 pm
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Original-Sender:	owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com

> From: Carl J R Johansson <cjjohans AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi>
> 
> On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Jim Balter wrote:
> 
> > For those familar with it, "GNU development tools" does not mean "a
> > compiler".  It includes the entire c library, at a minimum.  The page
> > goes on:
>
> But I don't understand what bash, tar, gzip, ls etc. have to do with
> compiling programs. There are already fully functional equivalents on 
> NT. 
> 
> >     easily configure and build many GNU tools from source (including
> >     rebuilding the gnu-win32 development tools themselves under x86 NT).

Note - easily configure and build. The tools come with configuration
and build scripts, and makefiles, which invoke things like tar, gzip,
ls, and so on, and rely on the semantics of bash. Part of the aim of
the exercise is to enable the standard distributions of the tools to
build with minimal changes. Changing all the build scripts and makefiles
to conditionally use NT equivalents of these tools when running on NT,
95 equivalents when running on 95, and GNU equivalents everywhere else, 
is not "minimal changes" even if it is practicably possible, and
contributes to them becoming much more difficult to maintain.

Regards,
		jjf
-
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 -