Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id: <200209300122.AA03711@mlx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v148.2.1)
From: MarketLogix Developer <mlx AT mlx DOT com>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 18:22:38 -0700
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Objective-C
Reply-To: bisk AT eqtc DOT com
References: <200209291959 DOT AA03513 AT mlx DOT com> <20020929235531 DOT GA28015 AT redhat DOT com>


Ahhhh, You did it.

I might have guessed. ;)

If it wasn't a major burden, believe me, I wouldn't
be snooping back around here.  From b18 thru 1.1.x,
it was simply a matter of undoing a couple of commented
lines in makefiles here and there and VOILA ! fully
functional Objective-C !!!  One of Cygwin's best kept
secrets !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think you probably realize, even better than I, that this
is no longer the case.  Its been a while since the first
1.3 release but I seem to recall Win32-API header namespace
clashes and all-out binary incompatibilities with the new linker.
I s'pose a least somewhat due to C++ enhancements.  Fair enough,
C++ pays the bills these days after all.  You knew to yank ObjC
rather than just hide it when it finally broke.

Sorry about the the "mis-inference" with respect to RedHat and
the somewhat simultaneous disappearance of ObjC in both the
net Cygwin release and the Linux R2.96-gcc product.

But ...

Seeing a RedHat R2.96-gcc ObjC rpm gives me hope that like minds
may have solved the same for the Cygwin 1.3.x net release.

Obviously, since you retired ObjC, I would not expect that to be you.
And I don't really care much about policies or politics or who did
what or why.  As an ancient career programmer I have only ONE agenda.

To see if any Cygwin developer is compiling ANYTHING with ObjC in
any of the 1.3.x releases.

I just thought I'd shoot this query out here - you never know
someone may have something positive to say on this subject.

Thanks for the quick responses guys, but I'm really just looking for
pointers on how to reincorporate ObjC at least unofficially back into the
latest net releases.


BTW,  Did I hear you right that the commercial Cygwin release is NOT BASED
IN ANY WAY on the Cygwin net release ?  I'd like to see the fine print
under that one !!!  Especially since the net release predates the commercial
by years.


bisk


Begin forwarded message:

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-bisk=eqtc DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 19:55:31 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Objective-C
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To: <200209291959 DOT AA03513 AT mlx DOT com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 12:59:54PM -0700, MarketLogix Developer wrote:
>I bailed from this list about a year or so ago when Cygnus, or rather, RedHat
>finally nuked ObjC in the 1.3.x net release of Cygwin.  I know that it was  
>never "officially" supported but once one could simply play with the
>makefiles a bit to get it going.  RedHat basically did the same by
>eliminating ObjC from with their 2.96 gcc release.  However, an ObjC rpm
>eventually surfaced to bring it back into the available toolset.
>
>Has some guru done the same for the Cygwin stuff or has the combination of
>COM, newlib, cygwin.dll, et. al. proven to be too much of a burden to overcome ?
>
>Thanks in advance,

"Red Hat" does not provide the cygwin net release.  I, and volunteers
provide the Cygwin net release.  Trying to draw analogies between
whatever shows up in Red Hat linux or inferring company policy for
anything in the Cygwin net release is wrong.

Red Hat does have a limited commercial Cygwin offering.  It probably
doesn't include Objective C.  I actually don't know.  It is not based in
any way on the Cygwin net release.

I am a Red Hat employee.  Corinna is a Red Hat employee.  Very
occasionally, Corinna gets to work on Cygwin for Red Hat.  I never do.

I was the person who decided not to include Objective C.  I made the
decision as an individual, not as a Red Hat representative.  Tim Prince
is right in supposing that this was a matter of time.  I have even
less time now than I did when I made the decision to nuke it.

However, since you figured out how to build Objective C, this isn't
that big a burden for you, AFAICT.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/