Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-05-23 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 21 May 2010 13:51:27 Rob Landley wrote: On Friday 21 May 2010 03:02:13 Mike Frysinger wrote: so really you have no solution other than Windows isnt supported. if you arent interested in working on something, then stop wasting people's time. 1) Thats a fairly context-free

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-05-22 Thread Denys Vlasenko
On Tuesday 04 May 2010 21:45, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Denys Vlasenko vda.li...@googlemail.com wrote: On Saturday 17 April 2010 21:48, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: 2010/4/17 Denys Vlasenko vda.li...@googlemail.com: I think a positive form, depends on

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-05-21 Thread Rob Landley
On Friday 21 May 2010 03:02:13 Mike Frysinger wrote: so really you have no solution other than Windows isnt supported. if you arent interested in working on something, then stop wasting people's time. -mike 1) Thats a fairly context-free message. Were you replying to me, or were you

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-05-21 Thread Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote: [snip] I don't believe the too big problem is entirely cygnus, I believe that the fundamental problem is that Win32 and Posix are very dissimilar and making one look like the other is a big job.  (Wine, going the other way,

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-05-06 Thread Rob Landley
On Tuesday 04 May 2010 14:45:07 Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Denys Vlasenko vda.li...@googlemail.com wrote: On Saturday 17 April 2010 21:48, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: 2010/4/17 Denys Vlasenko vda.li...@googlemail.com: I think a positive form, depends on

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-27 Thread Denys Vlasenko
On Saturday 17 April 2010 13:19, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: 2010/4/17 Denys Vlasenko vda.li...@googlemail.com:  Config.in: add target platform selection  Config.in: add target platform WIN32 This looks like a correct approach for this. Let's choose a good name for it. TARGET often

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-26 Thread Rob Landley
On Wednesday 21 April 2010 11:50:04 Mike Frysinger wrote: Is it compatible with busybox? for GPL-3 modules, i guess there might be a problem. people do ask gnulib upstream from time to time to relicense things under LGPL ... And the reason that wouldn't help is that LGPLv3 is only

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-25 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Saturday 24 April 2010 19:43:17 Rob Landley wrote: On Tuesday 20 April 2010 16:48:16 Mike Frysinger wrote: this is a ton of duplicate crap and exactly why i suggested we look at integrating something like gnulib/ for portability. busybox shouldnt be wasting any time at all on

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-25 Thread Rob Landley
On Sunday 25 April 2010 12:30:20 Mike Frysinger wrote: This package is a neat summary of everything BusyBox has ever stood in opposition to. We eliminate layers of indirection, we take total ownership of our implementation down to libc (or sometimes even system calls) so that we can rip

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-24 Thread Rob Landley
And this one too... On Monday 19 April 2010 00:43:18 Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: If you read the patch, you would see that it only refuses to build you you do use MinGW compiler and not have TARGET_WIN32 set. I mean the approach of annotating magic knowledge of build environments in

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-24 Thread Rob Landley
On Tuesday 20 April 2010 16:48:16 Mike Frysinger wrote: this is a ton of duplicate crap and exactly why i suggested we look at integrating something like gnulib/ for portability. busybox shouldnt be wasting any time at all on this. How about a subproject for the above stuff? We can

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 21 April 2010 01:30:04 Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: I'm not sure about license of gnulib. They say LGPL in info page, but copyright header in some source files say GPL-3. it depends on the module. look at modules/module to find out what a particular module is under. Is it

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-20 Thread Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thursday 15 April 2010 15:58:20 Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:   win32: add missing system headers   platform.h: support MinGW port   win32: add termios.h   win32: add mingw.h   libbb.h: support MinGW port   win32:

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-20 Thread Denys Vlasenko
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy pclo...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote: As for Config.in, I don't think you need to care about those depends on !MINGW32 (or alike) lines. If it's really a problem, do you have any

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-20 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 20 April 2010 13:47:30 Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thursday 15 April 2010 15:58:20 Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: win32: add missing system headers platform.h: support MinGW port win32: add termios.h

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-20 Thread Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tuesday 20 April 2010 13:47:30 Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thursday 15 April 2010 15:58:20 Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:   win32: add missing

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-19 Thread Rob Landley
On Sunday 18 April 2010 22:13:09 Denys Vlasenko wrote: On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote: those off. CONFIG_SELINUX hardly builds _anywhere_. A dozen of our applets won't build under Red Hat 9 anymore (just too old), but rather a lot still _do_. Yes.

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-19 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 15 April 2010 15:58:20 Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: win32: add missing system headers platform.h: support MinGW port win32: add termios.h win32: add mingw.h libbb.h: support MinGW port win32: Import fnmatch source win32: set binary I/O mode by default win32: add

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-18 Thread Rob Landley
On Thursday 15 April 2010 14:58:20 Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: Hi, This is something I think good enough to go upstream. The rest of my work is on: git://github.com/pclouds/busybox-w32.git wip Caveat: crappy, constantly rebased stuff as it's work in progress. However it may tell where

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-18 Thread Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote: Nguyá»…n Thái Ngá» c Duy (39):   ar: do not filter listing if there is no extra argument This is a regression, not related to Windows port at all.   Config.in: add target platform selection   Config.in: add target

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-18 Thread Rob Landley
On Sunday 18 April 2010 05:43:22 Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote: Nguyễn Thái NgỠc Duy (39): ar: do not filter listing if there is no extra argument This is a regression, not related to Windows port at all.

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-18 Thread Denys Vlasenko
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote: those off.  CONFIG_SELINUX hardly builds _anywhere_.  A dozen of our applets won't build under Red Hat 9 anymore (just too old), but rather a lot still _do_. Yes. I just checked. defconfig doesn't build on that image, I

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-18 Thread Denys Vlasenko
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote: On Linux, or allnoconfig is 10k.  (I'm not sure _why_ it's 10k, I thought it used to be more like 5k, but oh well...) Stdio has been linked in. The fix: --- busybox.4/libbb/appletlib.c 2010-04-07 09:01:43.0 -0700 +++

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-18 Thread Denys Vlasenko
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Denys Vlasenko vda.li...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote: On Linux, or allnoconfig is 10k.  (I'm not sure _why_ it's 10k, I thought it used to be more like 5k, but oh well...) Stdio has been linked in.

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-18 Thread Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote: As for Config.in, I don't think you need to care about those depends on !MINGW32 (or alike) lines. If it's really a problem, do you have any suggestions? Yeah, ship a windows defconfig file in the win32 subdirectory that's

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-17 Thread Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2010/4/17 Denys Vlasenko vda.li...@googlemail.com:  Config.in: add target platform selection  Config.in: add target platform WIN32 This looks like a correct approach for this. Let's choose a good name for it. TARGET often assumes architecture, maybe we should call it TARGET_PLATFORM?

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-17 Thread Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2010/4/17 Denys Vlasenko vda.li...@googlemail.com: I think a positive form, depends on TARGET_PLATFORM_POSIX, is better - you do not need to touch it for a gazillion of other weird platforms it does not run on (if you ever add them). Also, at this step, add it to every applet, not to applet

Re: [PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-17 Thread Jérémie Koenig
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy pclo...@gmail.com wrote: How about general features that do not depend on any applets? There are some features that won't be supported on Windows, should it be depends on !PLATFORM_MINGW32 or depends on PLATFORM_POSIX for them? Hi, I

[PATCH 00/39] Windows port, base and archival/

2010-04-15 Thread Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
Hi, This is something I think good enough to go upstream. The rest of my work is on: git://github.com/pclouds/busybox-w32.git wip Caveat: crappy, constantly rebased stuff as it's work in progress. However it may tell where this port leads to. If we don't count regex.c there are about 3k more