From: Earnie B. <ear...@ya...> - 2001-10-23 16:55:49
|
I've uploaded my long awaited for fork of Cygwin we all know by the name MSYS. There are currently two files named msys-tools-1.0.1-1.tar.gz and msys-sdk-1.0.1-1.tar.gz which you can find under package MSYS release 1.0. This is a hidden package currently so you'll need to access it from the project admin page to download it. It is based on the Cygwin 1.3.3 release so the code base is current release Cygwin version. I've tried to document all of the changes in ChangeLog.MSYS and in /usr/doc/MSYS/MSYS_VS_CYGWIN. There are other documents there as well. The files are rather large, tools is 12.8M and contains only the binaries and associated share/ files. sdk is 9.1M and contains the headers and libs needed for using GCC. I will provide a third file msys-src-1.0.1-1.tar.gz once I've cleaned some of the directories of object files. Some of the packages just don't conform to building in a separate build directory. Have fun but most importantly provide feedback. Earnie. P.S. The tools provided are the ones I found I couldn't live without. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com |
From: Christopher F. <cg...@re...> - 2001-10-23 18:49:36
|
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 12:55:51PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote: >I've uploaded my long awaited for fork of Cygwin we all know by the >name MSYS. There are currently two files named >msys-tools-1.0.1-1.tar.gz and msys-sdk-1.0.1-1.tar.gz which you can >find under package MSYS release 1.0. This is a hidden package >currently so you'll need to access it from the project admin page to >download it. It is based on the Cygwin 1.3.3 release so the code base >is current release Cygwin version. I saw the hints of this but can you provide me with your reason for a fork? I hate the idea of a fork. It usually means that there has been some kind of falling out between developers over questions of personality or design. AFAIK, this is not the case here so I am, I think, understandably confused. Since this is in the mingw mailing list, maybe I should assume that this is some kind of minimal cygwin implementation. If someone is interested in providing ifdefs for cygwin which would allow this from the cygwin sources, I'd happily consider that. I really don't like the idea of a fork. Sorry to respond from a cygwin point of view rather than a mingw one. cgf |
From: Earnie B. <ear...@ya...> - 2001-10-23 19:30:30
|
Christopher Faylor wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 12:55:51PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote: > >I've uploaded my long awaited for fork of Cygwin we all know by the > >name MSYS. There are currently two files named > >msys-tools-1.0.1-1.tar.gz and msys-sdk-1.0.1-1.tar.gz which you can > >find under package MSYS release 1.0. This is a hidden package > >currently so you'll need to access it from the project admin page to > >download it. It is based on the Cygwin 1.3.3 release so the code base > >is current release Cygwin version. > > I saw the hints of this but can you provide me with your reason for a > fork? I hate the idea of a fork. It usually means that there has been > some kind of falling out between developers over questions of > personality or design. > > AFAIK, this is not the case here so I am, I think, understandably > confused. > Correct, this is not the case here. > Since this is in the mingw mailing list, maybe I should assume that this > is some kind of minimal cygwin implementation. Minimal, uhm, I don't know about minimal, perhaps reimplementation works. > If someone is interested > in providing ifdefs for cygwin which would allow this from the cygwin > sources, I'd happily consider that. I really don't like the idea of > a fork. > I considered that but the changes I've made thus far are severe enough that I didn't want to proceed with that path. At least not yet. The "not yet" is the reason that I used preprocess guards for the coding instead of just deleting unwanted code. > Sorry to respond from a cygwin point of view rather than a mingw one. > No apologies necessary, I expected your response. I've removed the dependency of the Win32 Registry for the mount table, this is currently the biggest change. I always use emulated /etc/passwd logic. I've turned off ntsec and ntea. I always open handles and descriptors in binary mode. I've added a /etc/fstab read for user specified mounts. The plan is to have a posix shell and tools that work well for Win32 interpretability. An emphasis toward client only processing. There have been requests for this before and I just decided to see what I could do. You can review the changes at http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/mingw/msys/rt/src/ I like Cygwin and am amazed at what's been accomplished. I plan to stay a contributor of Cygwin. Earnie. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com |
From: Christopher F. <cg...@re...> - 2001-10-25 22:19:31
|
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 03:30:33PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote: >> Sorry to respond from a cygwin point of view rather than a mingw one. > >No apologies necessary, I expected your response. It occurred to me today that I have only one real concern and that is the licensing one. I'm not exactly sure how a fork works with code that is owned by a company. Certainly since the code is GPLed, you can use the source in any way that you want as long as you adhere to the GPL. I don't think it matters a whit that the code is owned by Red Hat but I am going to ask about this anyway just to make sure that someone doesn't ask *me* what's going on later. I would also ask you to be diligent in ensuring that there are no GPL violations of your new code. I don't know if mingw had GPL infection problems before but, if it doesn't, it may now. I know that you are aware of these licensing issues but I thought I'd raise them. Maybe you expected me to be concerned about this, too... cgf |