Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/07/18/01:02:38
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 08:41:26AM +0400, Andrej Borsenkow wrote:
>yOn Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 10:09:49AM -0700, Eric M. Monsler wrote:
>> >But, I did want to point out that there are good reasons for desiring a
>> >statically linked executable that are not in violation of the cygwin
>> >license.
>>
>> I don't think I've seen a good reason for this in this thread.
>>
>> The fact that you could have two disparate versions of the cygwin DLL
>> on your system is not, in any way, an argument for a statically linked
>> cygwin. Conflicts between two versions of cygwin have nothing to
>> do with the DLLness of Cygwin.
>>
>
>Actually, it is very good argument *against* static linking. In this case
>nothing can help if you have two different programs linked with two
>different versions. Somebody will have to rebuild every single program
>with new version of Cygwin as soon it is released ... nightmare.
Right! Good point.
>Probably, intelligent setup that checks for existence of cygwin dll
>and download/update it only if needed makes more sense.
Actually the current version of setup.exe has some preliminary code for
doing just this.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -