Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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: <3E42608E.1070507@nigels.com> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 00:18:06 +1100 From: Nigel Stewart & Fiona Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin Subject: Re: Packaging software built with cygwin References: <20030204194653 DOT A5738 AT thebrain DOT conmicro DOT cx> <20030204204803 DOT A6191 AT thebrain DOT conmicro DOT cx> <20030205033246 DOT GA4959 AT redhat DOT com> <20030205111822 DOT B9661 AT thebrain DOT conmicro DOT cx> <3E414A63 DOT 6060608 AT nigels DOT com> <033101c2cd3f$4f2936d0$78d96f83 AT pomello> In-Reply-To: <033101c2cd3f$4f2936d0$78d96f83@pomello> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Technically, the ideal solution would be to link against a set >>of static libraries. > > I believe this would require some significant work to make it possible. OK, it feels like we're getting into a circular argument. I am not insisting that anyone do any particular thing to Cygwin. My intention is to raise a perspective on a potential use of Cygwin which may or may not be desirable, feasible, popular or supported by the Cygwin community. > Also, the most experienced Cygwin coders won't be that interested, > because they *like* Cygwin-the-enviroment, as opposed to > Cygwin-for-the-sake-of-one-program. Fair enough, I like using Cygwin-the-environment, but feel restricted in terms of deploying binaries into a non-cygwin environment. Even though the Cygwin installation procedure has been greatly enhanced and streamlined, in my opinion Cygwin is too heavy-weight for an average computer user to install and administer. So, if this is outside the scope of what Cygwin is for, then that is a reasonable answer... I'm finding mingw is working quite well (perhaps, the best of both worlds) but would prefer to keep my code clean (POSIX) rather than infected with extraneous win32 calls... > You can - they just can't use the unix APIs. > I use Cygwin for all my compilation needs, Cygwin-linked, or native Win32. So rather than upsetting the Cygwin faithful, would it be better to expand the support POSIX subset for mingw, rather than making Cygwin an easily managed light-weight dependency. Regards, Nigel Stewart -- 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/