X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<43D69F82.8050209@verysmall.org>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:43:30 +0100
From:	"pobox AT verysmall DOT org" <pobox AT verysmall DOT org>
User-Agent:	Thunderbird 1.6a1 (Windows/20060119)
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Errors compiling cdrtools under cygwin 1.5.19
References:	<012420061825 DOT 2204 DOT 43D671090006A0AD0000089C22092299270A050E040D0C079D0A AT comcast DOT net> <20060124183552 DOT GA2889 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
In-Reply-To:	<20060124183552.GA2889@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

> This falls into the same category as my previous discussion about
> _POSIX_SOURCE.  If a program builds without problem on linux, the goal
> is for it to build without problem on cygwin.  It seems like the
> unconditional addition of getline to the headers moves us a step back
> from that goal.

Is this also valid for Apache 1.3.34?

I think it compiles without problem on Linux, but does not compile on 
cygwin since getline() was implemented last month.

I do not want to heat the discussion, but getline() in cygwin played 
very hard against me.

I used cygwin happily for very long time to compile 
apache/php/postgresql and enjoy symlinks, and now I am cut-off from one 
day to the next. The apache folks do not seem to care. The bug I 
submitted is still without reply -

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38364

Apache 2.x/php 5.x do not want to play on cygwin so far.

So I am three days in the dark and testing like hell vmware and minigw 
to save my skin.

Seems this getline() breaks quite a lot and I am not quite sure this is 
_very_ positive for cygwin. People just get left alone in the dark (no 
everybody can debug and patch) and the pride of cygwin is somehow self 
focused. I would expect such dramatic moves to be done with more care. 
Otherwise I could call cygwin nice, but not reliable.

Iv.


--
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/

- Raw text -