On Friday 21 May 2010 13:51:27 Rob Landley wrote: > On Friday 21 May 2010 03:02:13 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > so really you have no solution other than "Windows isnt supported". if > > you arent interested in working on something, then stop wasting people's > > time. > > 1) Thats a fairly context-free message. Were you replying to me, or were > you replying to Nguyen? Were you replying to a specific message, or is > this a general comment?
i snipped the irrelevant noise. since your last e-mail had nothing useful to reply to, it was all snipped. if you want context, generate something worth reading. > 2) Cygwin works just fine last I checked, how is this not a solution? with that logic, why does mingw exist at all i wonder > 3) I _think_ what you're saying is if I'm not interested in writing or > supporting Windows code I should stop working on BusyBox. that's pretty illogical conclusion, but you're free to dream up whatever you like. you seem inclined to do so. > There is a case to be made that cygwin is bigger than it needs to be > becuase it's full of gnu bloatware. So of course your suggestion was to > suck in gnu code to fashion a busybox-to-windows glue layer out of. And > you see no problem with this. and again, perhaps you should actually understood how gnulib works and what i was proposing. gnulib should be just about as thin as Nguyen's proposal, except that (1) we dont maintain it, (2) it has more fixes/portability than even Nguyen's work, (3) it need not be "sucked in". it is, by design, a "generated" layer that only includes the code requested at that point in time, compiles/links only what is missing for the target host, and is then thrown away. none of its sources would ever live in the busybox tree. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
