On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 11:45:37AM +0200, Jakob Eriksson wrote: > >On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 08:38:55PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:09:29PM +0100, Carlos Sousa wrote: >> >On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:34:07 +0200 Jakob Eriksson wrote: >> >> >> >> http://line.sourceforge.net/ >> > >> >Sorry to butt in, I'm just a lurker here, but isn't LINE a dead project? >> >Doesn't seem to have any activity since mid-2001... >> > >> >On the other hand, bringing a LINE fork under debian-win32 might be the >> >safest thing to do, in that scenario. >> >> AFAIK, it's a dead project and it uses cygwin at its core. Wasn't that >> what you were trying to avoid? >> > > >I have no problem using cygwin derived code per se. >But LINE uses cygwin in an original way. > > >My point is: with LINE, Debian-i386 can be used as is. No porting >required. (LINE already runs actual Linux programs.) > > >With traditional cygwin, all Debian has to be recompiled and probably >Glibc needs to be ported to ease that recompile.
There is 0% chance that a glibc-for-windows port would be accepted back into the main glibc base so, you'd be committed to maintaining a glibc fork in this scenario, too. >It is anybodys shot which way is the easiest, but I believe LINE is. >(Since LINE already can run complex Linux applications.) But you're still going through two levels of emulation. It's bound to be pretty slow. >Of course, none of this matters until somebody digs in, one approach >or another. I am all talk and nothing else at this stage. If you decide >to go for either approach, more power to you. I'm just a bystander here. I already maintain cygwin. I'm not volunteering anything except semi-expert observations -- and those are worth as much as you paid for them, of course. cgf
