Subject: Re: CYGWIN.DLL
From: [email-masked] (Carl J R Johansson)

19 Jan 1997 14:46:35 -0800
Approved: [email-masked]
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Sender: [email-masked]
Original-To: [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Ben Constable wrote:

> > * 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?
> 
Might make distribution of (smaller) programs easier and shouldn't break 
anything else, but is probably not a priority.

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