Subject: Re: CYGWIN.DLL
From: [email-masked] ("Ben Constable")

17 Jan 1997 23:50:30 -0800
Approved: [email-masked]
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Original-To: "Jeremy Blackman" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

> * 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?

Ben Constable
[email-masked]

-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".