> -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Michel POURE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 3:39 AM
> > That will be a BIG change for any tools that are not > "cygwin-native". > > If you are going to make that a goal, why not just convert > the tools > > to cygwin? > > Being a Cygwin user, I am convinced Cygwin installer should > not be used. > > This would confuse users who would have the choice between three > distributions. Let's take the example of Apache. A user would > have the choice > between : > - Apache from Cygwin installer, > - Native Windows Apache, > - W32/Debian Apache. > > Cygwin installer and dpkg have no knowledge of each other. So > what happens if > you install Cygwin Apache + W32/Debian apache by error during > an upgrade? It > may create a conflict, which will convince a normal user to > drop BOTH Cygwin > and W32/Debian. So help out with the dpkg integration for setup. I've been quite vocal about this in the past on the setup development list(s) (used to be cygwin-developers, now cygwin-apps). > Do you think this would be possible to follow these steps: > 1) Port dpkg to Windows using a static POSIX emulation layer. Posibly pw32. Msys --IS-- cygwin. (Ok, was, sure...). Cygwin ain't static, and cannot easily be. > 2) Create a cygwin.deb package for W32/Windows. This probably > means compiling > Cygwin under mingw, right? Cygwin always compiles under mingw - it's a native binary. > 2) Afterwards, we can start building W32/Debian packages with > whatever > dependency we want. Cygwin or non-Cygwin. This will give us > more freedom. You can do that now. Cygwin setup.exe installs win32 and cygwin binaries along with perl/python scripts etc. etc. > > Why? The only registry manipulation that cygwin does is > for the mount > > table. The "mount" command does this very well. > > IApache 2.0 threads have been redesigned for more > portability. So why should I > use it under Cygwin? If we do not find a way to provide > W32/Debian packages > for important software (Apache, Python, Tcl, etc..) not > linked agains Cygwin, > people ***may*** turn to native Windows executables. If it's not linked to Cygwin it _is_ a native Window executable. Or did I parse your paragraph wrongly. Anyway, /proc/registry allows full read access to the registry, and may allow write access soon. > What do you think of this in technical terms? > Can 1) 2) and 3) be done? 1) will be hard, and will be duplication of effort. (You will -still- have to solve the file replacement issue, as well as new porting challenges). 2) Is trivial. It's what cygwin is today, just repackaged. 3) You can do that now. I don't see what 1) gains you , except a headache. Rob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
