> > Is anyone using UnxUtils (to get some highly required Unix-like features on > > Win32) in his/her build environment? I'm using it for its native > > gawk/grep/echo/sort/etc. See websites: > > http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/ and > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/unxutils > I never liked this project very well.
Don't like it anymore either now I've seen that the CVS code and docs are rather...minimal... It uses a 1994 "Downhill" library to catch Unix calls. I can build the lib, but the Downhill test application (a single .c file) fails; and there's no info on how to compile the GNU tools themselves, not even info on how the downloadable .exe's we're created. > Cygwin is a full blown POSIX emulation so that you don't have to > ``port'' the UNIX source code to WINDOWS. When you build > using GCC it requires it cygwin1.dll runtime to support it. I see, so you can use the original package source code. That's an advantage. > > - MinGW > MinGW provides GCC and binutils that builds ``native'' binaries (i.e. > requires MSVCRT.DLL) and doesn't require a special dll. Also > provides freely distributable msvcrt and w32api headers and import libraries. > MinGW has MSYS (Minimal SYStem) which contains a modified version of > Cygwin but its purpose is to provide a shell environment for the > MINGW32 target. The modifications removed all registry fingerprint, > auto conversion of pathing from POSIX to Windows, and reduced > /cygdrive/c to just /c. The shell provided is bash but name sh for > POSIX compliance. MSYS uses MinGW gcc so there is no > dependency on any special runtime dll in your built code. MSYS = sort of Cygwin, MinGW = development tools. OK. So part of MSYS is not native. > > - GnuWin32 > Many unixy tools ported to native MSVCRT can be found here. If MinGW > doesn't provide it, you should use it from here. As read on the GnuWin32 site, it uses MinGW to build the tools and needs a shell as well (Cygwin or MSYS). MSYS + MinGW + GnuWin32 seem like a (mostly) native replacement for CygWin, but GnuWin32 uses modified source code, right? Hmm, I can't see the advantage of CygWin or MinGW/MSYS just yet. Native might perform better and you don't need the DLL but not having to modify a package source is also quite (very!) useful. And I can't think of anything that would need to be ported/modified in the GnuWin32 sources just yet...I'll think about that. So all in all, MSYS + MinGW + GnuWin32 seems like a good combination too. Although it's quite a lot of data if you want to put everything into our archive, including source, and to get everything running. I was hoping on: GNU tool source code + nmake makefile + library like UnxUtils' "Downhill" to catch Unix calls and that's it. That's not going to work... My main goal/concern is to put every tool, including its source code, into our archive so it can be reproduced/debugged/modified in the future; in case of bugs, new requirements or when sites go down. It should be useable even after 5 (or 10?) years, and not refer to a 404 website. > > Any other (free, open source) tools I should know about? > Too many to list here. Really? I also know about MKS Toolkit (not free I believe) and DJGPP (still active?). But CygWin and MinGW are the most active/used ones right? Or am I missing a "big player"? > > I put GNU make and it's source into our archive, compiled it using Visual C > > 6. No problem. I was hoping to do the same with other GNU tools but no luck > > so far. > You should be able to take make-3.81 source and build it in > MSYS using ./configure --prefix=/mingw && make. "GNU make-381" wasn't the problem :-) (I compiled it using Mcrsft Visual C 6). It's the other tools (gawk, grep, etc.) I'm looking at. UnxUtils seems to be a dead end. Regards, Joost Leeuwesteijn _______________________________________________ Make-w32 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
