On 2009-03-03, Trent W. Buck <[email protected]> wrote: > Call me Mr. Silly, but why is a Cygwin version of Darcs preferable to a > native binary? Last time I looked at Windows (which was, admittedly, > about six years ago) cygwin was a bloated, messy pile of confusing and > unweildy junk -- and that if you could get a utility (e.g. bash or grep) > as a stand-alone .exe, it was *much* easier to deploy.
It's a big mess that _still_ fails to provide basic multi-byte encoding/locale support. But I plan to use it as my LaTeX and code "IDE" (Ion+joe[*]+etc.), and would prefer darcs to work well with it, rather than with Windows itself. So let Cygwin (or UWin or whatever) do all the path mangling etc., and give me a version of darcs that thinks its running under *nix, to work well with those tools. [*] joe-editor.sf.net. -- In 1995, Linux was almost a bicycle; an alternative way of live to the Windows petrol beasts that had to be taken to the dealer for service. By 2008, Linux has bloated into a gas-guzzler, and local vendors and artisans have had to yield to "all under one roof" big box hypermarkets. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
