Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] RFC: A fork Cygwin source specialized for MinGW use

[Earnie B. <ear...@ya...>]

"Steve D. Perkins" wrote:
> 
> > SOURCE:  The code bloat in Cygwin is enormous.  I'm revamping
> > configuration and removing the unnecessary parts.
> 
>     Out of curiosity, what does this category include?
> 

I don't think it necessary to make the build of this library dependent
on having the sources for w32api and mingw included for one thing. 
Newlib crud for other systems/environments not i386 and cygwin related.

> > SUMMARY:  The use of this library would be to facilitate providing bash
> > for the command processor and bourne compliant sh.  As well as
> > fileutils, shellutils, textutils, etc.  IMO, if we do this at least half
> > of the Cygwin users would drop using Cygwin to using MinGW.
> 
>     More like 80%!
> 

I was being conservative. :)

>     For clarification... are you proposing a separate alternative to the minimalist
> MinGW distribution system presently available, or are we discussing the future
> replacement of the current package with this expanded system?  

I can see this becoming MinGW-2.0.  The individual packages would still
be available for the diehard.  FWIW, I'm thinking of adding the RSXIDE
to the current distribution.  It's a natural for the DJGPP enthusiasts.

> For what it's worth,
> my vote would lean towards the latter... creating a more comprehensive MinGW
> environment.  If developers are able to assume that certain tools will be in place
> with a "standard" MinGW environment... we are more likely to see libraries and
> applications made available with support for building with MinGW.  At present, the
> number of libraries and large apps designed to build under MinGW is ridiculously
> dwarfed by those that are designed to build under Cygwin... because library and app
> producers cannot assume that MinGW users will have an appropriate "make", or even
> "sh" for running "configure" scripts.  I'm growing unspeakably weary of having to put
> so much effort into tweaking code for MinGW builds, it often feels like I've
> re-written libraries applications from scratch.
> 

I agree.  I'm also getting weary of Chris' responses toward the
-mno-cygwin switch which MinGW has nothing to do with.

>     I understand (and share) others' objections to a POSIX layer... but I fail to see
> how this necessarily prohibits the adoption of a standard shell.  

The real nasty about this is the nasty caused by earlier versions of the
Cygwin license which prohibited using Cygwin to create compilers. :0 
It's what turned the heads against the POSIX layer.  I'm not against it,
I'm not for it but I do like a standard way of getting the job done. 
POSIX tools have been discussed and planned for in the past, it's now
time to move it forward.

I also believe that we could attract more developers for Msys than
Cygnus/Red Hat can for Cygwin.  People feel ripped off contributing to
Cygwin when Red Hat takes it to make money without any recompense to the
individuals who contributed.  I know, it's the GPL way but if GNU had
been "big business" selling the free software to make money I doubt that
it would have gone far.

> The inclusion of a
> shell along with a small set of tools (make, sh, awk, sed, grep, diff, etc.) would
> open the door to easier porting for countless applications and libraries... and incur
> low additional bloat for purists not desiring to use them.  Of course, where you draw
> the line between what's included and what's "unnecessary" is of key importance...
> which is why I ask that question above.  I believe that Paul Garceau's assessment of
> many users' wishes is correct... I (and many others) would find the optimal
> environment to be Cygwin with removal of the POSIX layer, generation of
> non-cygwin1.dll-based executables, and about 75-80% of "/bin" left out (perhaps made
> available in various OPTIONAL expansion packages).
> 

It is my opinion, I was one of them, that most users migrate to Cygwin
because they needed a "FREE", as in free beer, compiler for the Win32
OS.

-- 
Earnie.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com