Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <3CC947F0.E40FCB4A@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 08:28:32 -0400 From: Earnie Boyd Reply-To: Earnie Boyd X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Wilson CC: Robert Collins , cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: setup changes to build standalone References: <3CC8D3A1 DOT 7070605 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Wilson wrote: > > Robert Collins wrote: > > > Yes. I even documented all this some time back on > > http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-11/msg00634.html, but > > predicatably enough, no patches where forthcoming. Probably due to the > > complete lack of a prebuilt bz2lib for mingw (that my cursory searches > > have looked for). > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/mingwrep/ > I don't know if the maintainers of this site are still maintaining it. Paul Sokolovsky isn't active any longer and Stefan Jahn isn't a MinGW developer. This is one of those projects that I wish weren't. OTOH, https//sourceforge.net/projects/mingw/ would be willing to upload any MinGW package if it followed the --prefix=/mingw --host=mingw32 packaging rules (which unfortunately aren't documented except in the mingw-dvlpr archives) and that person was willing to maintain the pacakge (would need a SF account and be listed as a MinGW developer). > > >>I wonder if we need a "mingw-libs" package. > >> > > > > Yes, please, please, yes. I would really really love it if some of the > > common libs (zlib, bz2lib, stdc++) where available in a setup.exe > > installable pacakge. > > Yes, I like this too -- but I'm nervous about it growing ridiculously > large. What if (eventually) setup.ini turns into XML? Do we put a > mingw build of libxml into 'mingw-libs'? How far does this go? > (visions of full{mingw}.exe) > > OTOH, we've already discussed (and discarded, thank g-d) the idea of > (for instance) the zlib maintainer providing both a > cygwin-setup-installable zlib package (/usr/bin/cygz.dll, > /usr/lib/libz.[dll|a]) and a cygwin-setup-installable mingw-zlib package > (/usr/bin/mgwz.dll, /usr/lib/mingw/libz.[dll|a]). Ditto bzip2, libxml, > ... we are not a mingw-porting factory. > This is good. IMO, there should be no binaries not dependent on cygwin1.dll in the /bin a.k.a. /usr/bin and that the /bin and /usr/bin directories be marked as --cygwin-executable. One reason for doing this is that it speeds the execution process for spawning by avoiding win32 translations. > >>2) The above won't work in a cross build environment. You could say > >> CC='i686-pc-cygwin-gcc -mno-cygwin'..., I guess. > > for cross compiles: > > ../setup/configure --host=i686-pc-mingw32 --build-i686-pc-linux > > should do it (assuming a mingw32 cross compiler is present), or a > > combination using the CC string you have above with the mingw host will > > work too. > > whatever happened to the idea of an official cygwin package, that > contained a true cygwin-host, mingw-target cross compiler? Didn't > somebody or other volunteer to provide that? > Oh, I thought about it sometime ago, I've been busy with MSYS and have decided against my maintaining another package. Perhaps when Danny gets 3.1 up he can provide a Cygwin hosted Mingw32 targeted set of binaries. I also remember a discussion on one of Cygwin's lists about using scripts and symlinks to emulate this and may be the smartest way to go about providing cross build emulation. > (Granted, we still need 'cygwin-gcc -mno-cygwin' for the "self-hosting" > feature of cygwin1.dll, but there's no real need to *require* cygwin-gcc > -mno-cygwin for setup.exe, now that setup has been moved out of the > winsup tree) > Well, if you had a mingw32-gcc (cygwin hosted, mingw32 targeted) then you could use that instead of `gcc -mno-cygwin'. > >>anything that is non-simple. I haven't looked at it in a > >>while, though, so maybe things have changed. > >> > > > > It really depends on what you want to do. Some stuff it does > > spectalularly well, some things it has trouble with. With the 'cross > > compiling but not' approach, it would almost certainly have some trouble > > :}. > > see above, true cross compiler... > Or even the simulated with script and symlink one. Earnie.