Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:46:32 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: A quick note on <newlib.h>
Message-ID: <20020828154632.GE4346@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <000201c24e27$ffa0bb10$6132bc3e AT BABEL> <20020828003122 DOT GL16631 AT redhat DOT com> <3D6CAE06 DOT 7080805 AT netscape DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3D6CAE06.7080805@netscape.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 07:03:34AM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>[SNIP]
>>
>
>>This is one of the reasons that I'm getting sick of our dependency on
>>newlib.  I've asked that cygwin be taken into account when making
>>changes like this but, the last I heard, the newlib guys were stalled
>>trying to accommodate my request since the two year old gcc cross
>>compiler that they insist on using is no longer able to build cygwin.
>>
>Sneak into their office and "assist" them in an upgrade :-).  Or better 
>yet, put 'em in thier place via a live demonstration showing how wrong 
>they are.

Their offices are sprinkled around Canada and the US.  I'm working from
my home in Boston and (occasionally) out of the new Boston office.
That's not going to work.

>>It's easy enough to add another include path to cygwin but I'm not sure
>>that I want to do that.  I think, instead, I'm going to start thinking
>>about how we can eliminate our dependency on newlib.
>>
>I know this has been talked about to death, but in light of your 
>comments I feel it is appropriate to revisit the matter.  Although not a 
>trivial task, perhaps we should seriously consdier switching to glibc? 

Licensing.

cgf