On Jun 11 16:42, m...@morous.org wrote: > > On Jun 11 12:58, Ray Donnelly wrote: > >> I for one am hugely appreciative of all the hard work that Corinna, Kai, > >> redhat, the mingw-w64 team and also Alexey has put into both Cygwin and > >> MSYS2. > >> > >> Cygwin and MSYS2 exist for different, mutually exclusive goals. Anything > >> we > > > > I fail to see that. MSYS2 is basically to run a Mingw compiler and to > > have a POSIX-like shell. How is that something Cygwin doesn't provide > > anyway?!? > > Before I begin I would like to note that I have never been a member of > cygwin or MSYS development community, but that I was using both in the > past as a user (several years each). > > I am one of those who uses MSYS and who does not like cygwin, so perhaps > it might be beneficial to provide my point of view. So keep in mind that > what follows is only my subjective opinions what MSYS is good for and why > it is good to have it. > > If you want a minimalistic environment where you can use simple unix-like > Makefile or run your configure script, MSYS is exactly that. If your > shell script or Makefile works in MSYS, you can have a good confidence it > will work for others who use MSYS, and probably even for those who use > cygwin or who cross-compile on Linux. > > On the other side, cygwin is very big, complex and ever-changing beast.
We seem to mix two things here. I'm more concerned about a fork of the Cygwin DLL, Cygwin, the underlying POSIX DLL vs. MSYS2, the underlying POSIX DLL. You seem to be taking of Cygwin the distro, vs. MSYS2 the distro and the contained tools. If the Cygwin distro is too big, or too unstable or whatnot for your taste, that's ok. So, if you think that a MSYS2 distro makes sense, because of a different set of tools, more compact, easier to install, more aligned with the requirements of the Mingw developer, than that's fine. But I don't see that this qualifies for a fork of the DLL. Or, FWIW, to implement a parallel toolchain, targeting *exactly* the same target, just with another toolchain name, linked against the same DLL, just using another name, so the tools are non-interoperable. Think about it. You have two sets of exactly the same coreutils (cp, mv, ls, ...) which are non-interoperable just because the DLL they are linked against are named differently? That's just puzzeling. It doesn't help anybody. > There were also other technical reasons which perhaps may be already be > fixed. A lot has changed since 2002... Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer Red Hat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
