Well, I was the poster of the mail to which "Mr Cygwin"
has thus responded. ;-)
The "associated problems" I was talking of was certain
gotchas, especially those relating to PATH and the confusion
between using "//c/xyz" and "c:/xyz" for various things,
depending on which toolset was interpreting it.
As for MSYS v/s Cygwin, I guess he's a little rattled that
the MSYS+MinGW combo completely obviates the need for Cygwin
for most of the people. ;-)
Since both toolsets have a large set of goals in common, it
makes sense for both of them to work together as much as is
possible while forking off where they differ. What's wrong
I want a good and free set of development tools on Windows
that works well with other Windows applications and
technologies - and MinGW gives me this (almost there).
MSYS gives me a nice and very powerful programming environment
and the UNIX tools that I've grown fond of and making
sure that most "configure"-based software works either
out of the box or with minimal changes. My own experience
with trying to build GCJ are a strong case in point for
this. I'm one of those people who are "wild about this MSYS
FYI, I was one of the earliest adopters of the Cygwin
toolset. Though it was great, it tried to completely hide
the Windows environment from me and had the "cygwin.dll"
baggage - the "no-cygwin" thingy is, at best, a kludge, IMHO.
Cygwin might be great for porting applications originally
developed for POSIX-y environments, but for developing
fresh applications, it just doesn't cut it! Not every
Windows application in the world is a port you see.
From Mumit's times, I have stuck with MinGW, so I might
not be aware of "advances" made by Cygwin in integrating
better with Windows, if any.
Earnie Boyd wrote:
> Does someone else want to chime in? If I see nothing else by the end of the
> day, I'll give my opinions.
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 12:34:09PM +0530, Ranjit Mathew wrote:
>>>I recently (and successfully, I might add) built ACE 5.2.1 with MinGW
>>>1.1 and MSYS 1.0.7 using the build instructions given in the ACE docs.
>>>The docs however, refer to a CYGWIN/MinGW combo setup with its
>>>associated problems - it was far simpler and quite straightforward to
>>>use MSYS instead!
>>Out of curiousity what "associated problems" are there with cygwin? If it's
>>just the problems with -mno-cygwin then recent test versions of gcc should
>>eliminate all of them.
>>I'm always interested in hearing how msys solves a problem since as far
>>as I know MSYS is based almost entirely on cygwin.
>>And, as I've previously stated, I'm not wild about the idea of this msys
>>fork although it certainly falls within the rights of free software to
>>This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
>>cell phone? Get a new here for FREE!
>>MinGW-users mailing list
>>You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at:
> This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
> cell phone? Get a new here for FREE!