Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Injected-Via-Gmane:	http://gmane.org/
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	John Williams <jwilliams AT itee DOT uq DOT edu DOT au>
Subject:	Re: Obtaining a pervious version
Date:	Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:13:15 +1000
Lines:	29
Message-ID:	<3E51A4CB.7000304@itee.uq.edu.au>
References:	<Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0302171935300 DOT 7773-100000 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <007a01c2d6e8$9f090380$78d96f83 AT pomello>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Complaints-To:	usenet AT main DOT gmane DOT org
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020311
X-Accept-Language:	en-us, en

Hey everyone,

Thanks all for your input and comments on this thread.  If nothing else 
I've learned a little more about the mechanics of Cygwin, which can't be 
a bad thing.

I have re-assessed my needs and decided I am, in fact, better off 
running with Cygwin and Xygwin side-by-side, completely independent of 
each other.  Where I need cygwin utils, I'll run them under Cygwin, and 
likewise for Xygwin.  It shouldn't matter for my end product.  In case 
anybody's interested, I'm porting linux to Xilinx's soft-core embedded 
processor.  I'll run the kernel configuration and dependency generation 
tools under Cygwin using native x86 gcc and bin-utils, then switch to 
Xygwin to do the cross compilation.

I realise this is not ideal, nor is it a particularly clean or elegant 
solution.  I will pass on some of the comments made here to the Xygwin 
developer, and see if they are interested in "beefing" up their version 
to make it more compliant. However, since they are just doing it to 
provide a basic support layer to their gcc cross-compiler, it is 
unlikely to be a priority for them.  I can understand that, and 
certainly won't be badgering them about it.  One point I have raised is 
if they really need Xygwin at all, or if they could just build their 
tools under "standard" cygwin.  We'll see what comes of it.

Thanks again,

John



--
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 -