From: cjjohans AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi (Carl J R Johansson) Subject: Re: CYGWIN.DLL 19 Jan 1997 14:46:35 -0800 Approved: cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Distribution: cygnus Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: cjjohans AT kruuna DOT Helsinki DOT FI Original-To: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com In-Reply-To: <970118054327.27257@cse.unsw.edu.au> Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com 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 "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".