Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: fixup-cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com@fixme
From: "Paul G." <pgarceau AT qwest DOT net>
Organization: Paul G.
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:53:55 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Remove cinstall src directory from snapshots
Reply-to: pgarceau AT qwest DOT net
Message-ID: <3C0273A3.4316.702A6A@localhost>
In-reply-to: <0a0c01c174c6$a5ec2db0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.01)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body

On 24 Nov 2001 at 20:01, Robert Collins wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul G." <pgarceau AT qwest DOT net>
> > > >I don't think so, there's no reason that the source for utils isn't
> > > >cygwin-1.5.3-1-src.tar.bz2.
> > >
> > > I thought of that but then I'd have to release a version of cygwin
> sources
> > > with winsup/utils that  had no relationship to the net release.
> Maybe that's
> > > not a problem.  You don't think we'd have people trying to build
> cygwin itself
> > > from these sources?
> 
> ...
> 
> > Whether it was due to inexperience with building setup.exe or due to
> something else, I ended up resorting to a
> > complete rebuild of cygwin1.dll before setup.exe would even begin to
> link properly (second run).  It still failed on second
> > run.  By that point, however, I had a very good idea of what was
> needed before a so-called "clean" build of Setup.exe could
> > be generated.
> 
> Hmm, do you have those logs by any chance? 'All' setup.exe needs is
> w32api, mingw, zlib and libbz2

	I actually put the source in a place separate from the cygwin 
tree, so that may have been the problem.  If running under Cygwin 
environment, the -mno-cygwin is selected by setup make (thus the 
mingw32 default).  I am assuming a Cygwin build environment since the 
Mingw compiler (gcc/g++) has no need for a -mno-cygwin switch.

	Afaik, the only gcc build that needs that particular switch is the 
Cygwin version.
	Unfortunately, and I am likely mistaken on this point, Cygwin gcc 
appears to require cygwin1.dll, doesn't it?  Then there is ld, bash, et. al. 
as well for Cygwin build.  automake, autoconfig, et. al. are futher 
considerations as they will not run without the cygwin1.dll being linked 
somewhere (Cygwin bash?) for as long as you are using Cygwin build 
environment, right?

> 
> > So, to address the query cgf presented, the possibility is definitely
> there that someone may attempt to rebuild all
> > of Cygwin from nothing but the winsup/utils.  We already know that
> Setup.exe has a certain dependency, in its current
> > form, on cygwin1.dll as well as several other utilities (bash, bz2,
> zlib, etc.) that may or may not be included as part of a
> > winsup/utils source collection.
> 
> Actually, setup.exe is a mingw app, not a cygwin app, so having no
> cygwin source should be fine.

	Can setup.exe be built without Cygwin being installed?
> 
> Anyway, I'm personally in favour of pointing folk at CVS, at least for
> the immediate future, as its
> a) simple for us.
> b) GPL compliant (folk who get the binary can get the source at the same
> time)
> c) can be changed in the future with no ill effect.
> 
> And unlike cygwin, there's little reason for folk to want a custom
> version of setup. Indeed, if they have such, then chances are they have
> the nounce to manage the source themselves.

	Granted.  I agree.

	Paul G.