Subject: Re: yikes, what are these?
From: [email-masked]
To: Vadim Egorov <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:54:46 -0400

On Thu, Jun 17, 1999 at 09:53:01AM +0400, Vadim Egorov wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Yes, I had to build one of the recent egcs snapshots from sources but it
>was quite painless. I used Jan 15 cygwin snapshot -- it might have made 
>the trick -- and Mumit Khan's egcs-1.1.2 on the top of WinNT 4.0 sp5.  
>
>To have the same directory structure as clean B20.1 installation I run
>configure scripts using i586-cygwin32 as host parameter.

I thought I should point out something, since I have seen an apparent
misconception here a few times.

If you don't like the default structure that our cygwin releases impose on
you, there is no reason to use it.  Personally, I move everything around
to a more "UNIX-like" structure.  So, I have a /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin,
/usr/local/lib, etc.

What I'm trying to say, is that, with the possible exception of bison
(which will be fixed in the next release) nothing should be relying
on builtin path names using the funky H-*/i-* subdirectory structure.
Feel free to move things into more UNIX-friendly locations.

In fact, that's what we'll be doing in the next release.

-chris

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to [email-masked]