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: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:26:52 -0400
To: "Cygwin Mailing List (E-mail)" <cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: RFC: linux compatibility
Message-ID: <20001013172652.N1492@cygnus.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: "Cygwin Mailing List (E-mail)" <cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
References: <20001013211422 DOT 6698 DOT qmail AT web122 DOT yahoomail DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.6i
In-Reply-To: <20001013211422.6698.qmail@web122.yahoomail.com>; from earnie_boyd@yahoo.com on Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 02:14:22PM -0700

On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 02:14:22PM -0700, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>--- "Gary R. Van Sickle" <tiberius AT braemarinc DOT com> wrote:
>> As a user, it seems to me that this should be how the priorities work out:
>> 
>> 1.  POSIX compliant, if for no other reason than it's the right thing to do.
>> 2.  "GNU compliant", by which I mean essentially that anything that links
>> and runs with glibc should work with Cygwin.
>> 3.  "Other-Unii compatible", meaning that aything that can be added to the
>> Cygwin mix that doesn't violate the above and yet allows it to be more
>> compatible with other distributions should be added.
>> 
>> I don't see "which Unix do we emulate?" as a sensible question.  Cygwin is
>> intended to be 'Unix on Windows', not 'Linux on Windows' or 'BSD on Windows'
>> or 'Solaris on Windows'.
>> 
>> Isn't it?
>> 
>
>Well, isn't Linux intended to be Unix for the PC?  I think the discussion is
>about standards and DJ is asking if Linux should be the standard to follow.  I
>believe that Linux is both POSIX and GNU compliant which covers your 1 and 2
>numbered points.  As for number 3, that's a different question, although I
>agree that if it adds to portability then it might be considered.

My biggest concern is backwards compatibility.

Is it worth Linux compatibility if it means "cygwin2.dll"?

cgf

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