Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 00:24:56 -0400
To: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject: Re: compiling python under cygwin
Message-ID: <20001005002456.A17472@cygnus.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
References: <20001004205640 DOT A11993 AT cygnus DOT com> <000101c02e7c$fd041720$c236ba8c AT nhv>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.6i
In-Reply-To: <000101c02e7c$fd041720$c236ba8c@nhv>; from nhv@cape.com on Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 11:32:53PM -0400

On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 11:32:53PM -0400, Norman Vine wrote:
>>How about a few more details other than "fail compilation" before any
>>decisions are made?
>
>It is my understanding that the 'reason' for Cygwin is so one can
>write Posix code that will run on a Windows platform.  By including
><winsock.h> any code written to use the Posix headers 
> <netdb.h>  <sys/socket.h>  <netinet/in.h>
>will have numerous namespace collisions.
>
>Perhaps it would be advantageous performance wise to use
>the native Windows sockets rather then the Cygwin Posix sockets
>but that IMHO rather defeats the purpose of Cygwin 

You realize that you posted this insightful observation about an hour
after Jason helpfully posted the details that I asked for and about
fifty minutes after I sent this:

>Ok.  You've convinced me.  tcp.h is conflicting with sys/socket.h among
>other things.  I'll remove the winsock.h reference.

Right?  I've waited a little while to see if that realization has sunk
in but apparently it hasn't.

In case it isn't obvious, I'd like people to think about posting
*details* when they report problems.  Posting "fail to compile" (no
offense, Jason) is not helpful to anyone else reading the list.

I was pretty sure when I saw the email how I'd screwed up by including
winsock.h but a terse exchange of:

"It failed to compile.  Please make tcp.h empty."

"Ok, I will."

is not useful reading for anyone.

And, of course, if I did make the change, I would only be ass*u*ming
that I understood the reason for removing winsock.h.

Now, however, we have some nice details in the archives for people to
ignore at a later date when someone wonders why tcp.h is empty.

I have this possibly fruitless hope that if I keep asking for details,
eventually people will provide them.  I hate to be making this point in
any way around email from Jason, since he is usually very good at
providing said details, and has been a valuable Cygwin contributor, but
since you seemed to think that I needed to be educated about the reason
for Cygwin, I've returned the favor to educate you in the proper way to
report problems.

I'm sure you appreciated the education as much as I did.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com