From: Earnie B. <ear...@ya...> - 2003-01-10 13:53:27
|
I've been contemplating the next MinGW release. I'm wondering if I shouldn't just package MSYS within this release. So here is the next poll. [ ] Sounds great, do it. [ ] Sounds stupid, why would you ever to that? [ ] Sounds great, but 3 more mega byte for MinGW, ouch! [ ] Other opinion __________________________________. Earnie. |
From: Dave R. <eb...@eq...> - 2003-01-10 14:02:25
|
[*] Sounds great, do it. [ ] Sounds stupid, why would you ever to that? [ ] Sounds great, but 3 more mega byte for MinGW, ouch! [ ] Other opinion __________________________________. Regards Dave. |
From: Roger K. W. <ROG...@sa...> - 2003-01-10 14:25:51
|
Earnie Boyd wrote: > I've been contemplating the next MinGW release. I'm wondering if I > shouldn't just package MSYS within this release. So here is the next > poll. > > [ x] Sounds great, do it. > [ ] Sounds stupid, why would you ever to that? > [ ] Sounds great, but 3 more mega byte for MinGW, ouch! > [ ] Other opinion __________________________________. > > Earnie. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! > http://www.vasoftware.com > _______________________________________________ > MinGW-users mailing list > Min...@li... > > You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users > > -- Roger Wells, P.E. SAIC 221 Third St Newport, RI 02840 401-847-4210 (voice) 401-849-1585 (fax) ro...@mt... |
From: Anthony T. <an...@co...> - 2003-01-10 14:36:40
|
Sounds great. One less download... :-) On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 06:53, Earnie Boyd wrote: > I've been contemplating the next MinGW release. I'm wondering if I > shouldn't just package MSYS within this release. So here is the next poll. > > [ ] Sounds great, do it. > [ ] Sounds stupid, why would you ever to that? > [ ] Sounds great, but 3 more mega byte for MinGW, ouch! > [ ] Other opinion __________________________________. > > Earnie. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! > http://www.vasoftware.com > _______________________________________________ > Mingw-msys mailing list > Min...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-msys -- Anthony Tuininga an...@co... Computronix Distinctive Software. Real People. Suite 200, 10216 - 124 Street NW Edmonton, AB, Canada T5N 4A3 Phone: (780) 454-3700 Fax: (780) 454-3838 http://www.computronix.com |
From: Andrew M. I. <am...@ya...> - 2003-01-10 15:11:49
|
[X] Sounds great, do it. -- Andrew |
From: Max B. <ma...@uk...> - 2003-01-10 15:17:21
|
Earnie Boyd wrote: > I've been contemplating the next MinGW release. I'm wondering if I > shouldn't just package MSYS within this release. So here is the next > poll. > > [ ] Sounds great, do it. > [ ] Sounds stupid, why would you ever to that? > [ ] Sounds great, but 3 more mega byte for MinGW, ouch! > [X] Other opinion : If you do this, could you provide it unbundled as well? I prefer the modular approach, because it's easier to update components individually. Max. |
From: Nathan F. <na...@ya...> - 2003-01-10 15:27:03
|
Hello Earnie, I always use MSYS with MinGW now, however I imagine there maybe some people who use it with cygwin or there own environment. Would it be possible to package wget or something similar with MinGW and have an install script that downloads an MSYS-stable package, if so desired, and then proceeds to configure the environment appropriately. This could be used to allow future upgrades to the MSYS env to be seperate from MinGW. On the other hand it maybe easier and less time consuming to have two releases 1 with MSYS and 1 without MSYS. Regards, Nathan PS Should we maybe add poll questions to the website? On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 13:53, Earnie Boyd wrote: > I've been contemplating the next MinGW release. I'm wondering if I > shouldn't just package MSYS within this release. So here is the next poll. > [x] Sounds great, do it. > [ ] Sounds stupid, why would you ever to that? > [ ] Sounds great, but 3 more mega byte for MinGW, ouch! [x] Other opinion 2 MinGW packages: 1 w/ MSYS, and 1 w/out MSYS > > Earnie. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! > http://www.vasoftware.com > _______________________________________________ > MinGW-users mailing list > Min...@li... > > You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users |
From: Greg C. <chi...@mi...> - 2003-01-10 17:47:02
|
Earnie Boyd wrote: > > I've been contemplating the next MinGW release. I'm wondering if I > shouldn't just package MSYS within this release. So here is the next poll. I don't like to say 'stupid', but I'd pick > [X] Sounds stupid, why would you ever to that? Three extra megabytes here, a few more there, and pretty soon you're talking about a serious download. Where do you draw the line? IIRC bison and cvs are still in the DTK--why not include them too? MinGW 2.0.0 already contains everything you must have to write your own winapps: GCC-3.2-core-20020817-1 binutils-2.13-20020903-1 mingw-runtime-2.2 w32api-2.0 plus a couple other things that most people probably like to have anyway: gdb-5.1.1-1 make-3.79.1-20010722 (binary renamed as mingw32-make) (I'll resist the urge to counter-propose deleting those last two items.) But I think a lot of people don't need MSYS because they aren't building './configure && make' software. MSYS is also different IIRC in that it modifies the registry and needs an uninstaller to clean up after it, while the other stuff above is uninstalled with 'rm'. It seems remotely conceivable that a win2k user might not have a high enough privilege level for that--would that completely block them from installing the package? The more things you include in the monolithic distro, the greater the likelihood that one of them will go out of date and have to be upgraded individually. But the people who would download individual components anyway probably care little about the monolithic distro. I don't like the idea, but it's not going to matter much to me. |
From: Danny S. <dan...@cl...> - 2003-01-10 20:02:03
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Earnie Boyd" <ear...@ya...> To: "MinGW Users" <min...@li...>; <Min...@li...> Sent: Friday, 10 January 2003 13:53 Subject: [Mingw-users] MinGW and MSYS combined package > I've been contemplating the next MinGW release. I'm wondering if I > shouldn't just package MSYS within this release. So here is the next poll. > > [ ] Sounds great, do it. > [ ] Sounds stupid, why would you ever to that? > [ ] Sounds great, but 3 more mega byte for MinGW, ouch! > [ x] Other opinion __________________________________. > I'll echo Greg Chicares post on this. I don't like the idea but it won't affect how I use mingw. The earlier post, indicating that -mno-cygwin issues are OT on the mingw list hit a nerve. Many -mno-cygwin issues (queries about w32api, queries about mingw runtime) are directly relevant to mingw and may find more experienced answers here than on cygwin list. Posts to cygwin lists are sometimes redirected to mingw for that reason. I believe that improvements to -mno-cygwin are good for mingw. Certainly improvements to cygwin (with or without -mno-cygwin) have helped some mingw developers more than have, say, improvements to msys. Okay back to the monolthic msys-mingw package question. I fear that users will get the idea that they absolutely need msys to use mingw. That is not true. I hope it never becomes true. Danny Danny |
From: Manu <ma...@wa...> - 2003-01-10 22:21:33
|
Danny Smith wrote: [cut] > The earlier post, indicating that -mno-cygwin issues are OT on the > mingw list hit a nerve. Many -mno-cygwin issues (queries about w32api, > queries about mingw runtime) are directly relevant to mingw and may find > more experienced answers here than on cygwin list. [cut] Happy to read that. I'm a MSYS user, not a Cygwin user. OTOH, I think -mno-cygwin isn't OT. I'd like to read about Cygwin+MinGW as well as MSYS+MinGW. Manu. |
From: Michael B. <mic...@gm...> - 2003-01-10 20:50:02
|
Earnie Boyd wrote: > I've been contemplating the next MinGW release. I'm wondering if I > shouldn't just package MSYS within this release. So here is the next > poll. > > [* ] Sounds great, do it. > [ ] Sounds stupid, why would you ever to that? > [ ] Sounds great, but 3 more mega byte for MinGW, ouch! > [ ] Other opinion __________________________________. > > Earnie. Michael Bester. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! > http://www.vasoftware.com > _______________________________________________ > MinGW-users mailing list > Min...@li... > > You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users > > |
From: Andrew S. <ac...@sy...> - 2003-01-10 21:15:59
|
[X] Other opinion Personally, it doesn't make much difference to me, I generally have several different versions of gcc/msys/binutils/etc installed along side each other, as long as I can still pull down the individual packages. The extra size doesn't bother me in the slightest, but I do have to wonder if it wouldn't scare of some potential "converts" who have a slow connections and/or bandwidth limits. Cheers, Andrew. |
From: Paul M. <li...@mo...> - 2003-01-10 21:44:48
|
Earnie Boyd <ear...@ya...> writes: > I've been contemplating the next MinGW release. I'm wondering if I > shouldn't just package MSYS within this release. So here is the next > poll. > > [ ] Sounds great, do it. > [X] Sounds stupid, why would you ever to that? > [ ] Sounds great, but 3 more mega byte for MinGW, ouch! > [ ] Other opinion __________________________________. A number of reasons: 1. I like to install mingw and msys in 2 completely independent directories - I can't see a combined package offering that (unless it prompts for each location independently). 2. Users who don't need msys will run the new installer, and will see the msys icon as the only evidence of what has happened. If they try it, they'll get completely the wrong idea of what mingw is... 3. I suspect *many* people will be quite happy with just mingw - msys for them will just be (potentially) confusing bloat. Unfortunately, I suspect that the proportions on the lists (and hence the audience for your question) will be strongly biased towards people who *do* use mingw. (But this is just speculation on my part...) I know that I have friends who I give the mingw package to, but who would have no interest in, or use for, msys. I'd suggest that you do a mingw-only distribution and a combined distribution, but that isn't likely to give enough benefit to be worth the bother... If you go for a combined installer, I'll probably end up installing once, unpicking the 2 parts, and building my own separate packages. (And giving the mingw one to my friends in preference to directing them to the official site...) Paul. -- This signature intentionally left blank |
From: Raoul G. <Rao...@ya...> - 2003-01-10 23:51:20
|
"Earnie Boyd" <ear...@ya...> wrote in message news:3E1...@ya...... [ ] Sounds great, do it. [ ] Sounds stupid, why would you ever to that? [x] Sounds great, but 3 more mega byte for MinGW, ouch! [ ] Other opinion __________________________________. Combining them would probably give beginners a better jump start, but then again, what's so hard about downloading and installing them separately? For the bandwidth challenged (like me) bigger downloads are always a bit off-putting. R. |
From: Heiko G. <hg...@te...> - 2003-01-11 00:00:05
|
> [X] Other opinion __________________________________. I wouldn't say making MSYS part of the release would be a step towards Cygwin but it might look like it from the outside and it might confuse and frighten programers with pure windows background coming to MinGW. All they would actually see from a MinGW installation is a "weird" shell on their desktop which they can not handle and which they probably never need. Personally it doesn't really matter to me. Greetings Heiko |
From: Keiichi T. <bi...@jc...> - 2003-01-11 04:32:17
|
> [ ] Sounds great, do it. > [X] Sounds stupid, why would you ever to that? > [ ] Sounds great, but 3 more mega byte for MinGW, ouch! > [ ] Other opinion __________________________________. -- Keiichi Takahashi, bitWalk Co.,Ltd. mailto:bi...@jc... http://members10.tsukaeru.net/bitwalk/ |
From: <cg...@wo...> - 2003-01-11 10:36:26
|
Earnie Boyd wrote: > I've been contemplating the next MinGW release. I'm wondering if I > shouldn't just package MSYS within this release. So here is the next > poll. > > [ ] Sounds great, do it. > [X] Sounds stupid, why would you ever to that? > [ ] Sounds great, but 3 more mega byte for MinGW, ouch! > [ ] Other opinion_______________________________. Sounds unuseful. Sounds great having the option for download them separately, but then site maintenance problems? Then leave them separated. (I guess >90% of msys users want mingw and the percentage is far less in the other direction). It's better having them separately than having them only in one piece. I agree with all those who say sounds stupid. It can make some beginners think they need the shell. At first the shell for people who always used winGUI programs have difficulty with shells and so (I got cygwin before mingw as my first compiler, and although I never needed the bash, I simply did gcc -o app.exe app.c, I was thinking "Uhf!, I hope I'll never need use the bash more deeply", then I found this through Dev-Cpp and it was the calm. Well, now I wouldn't have any problem with bashes (I guess), but if I would having seen it from first I would have searched another compiler. There was either the matter about cygwin1.dll and so). And the download time... Installing msys and mingw one from each download is not so difficult as to make them an alone download. > > Earnie. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! > http://www.vasoftware.com > _______________________________________________ > MinGW-users mailing list > Min...@li... > > You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users > |
From: Nicolas W. <nic...@gm...> - 2003-01-11 11:37:51
|
> [ ] Sounds great, do it. > [ ] Sounds stupid, why would you ever to that? > [ ] Sounds great, but 3 more mega byte for MinGW, ouch! > [X] Other opinion: Doesn't sound stupid, but I don't need MSYS (yet) > and I think this would also make it more difficult for newbies to see > where to start (and 3 MB are a lot for me ;-)) |
From: Mattia B. <mb...@ds...> - 2003-01-11 14:32:29
|
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:53:25 -0500 Earnie Boyd <ear...@ya...> wrote: > I've been contemplating the next MinGW release. I'm wondering if I > shouldn't just package MSYS within this release. So here is the next > poll. > > [ ] Sounds great, do it. > [ ] Sounds stupid, why would you ever to that? > [ ] Sounds great, but 3 more mega byte for MinGW, ouch! > [ ] Other opinion __________________________________. I agree with what Greg Chicares said (except for the part about registry & uninstaller). OTOH I usually install from individual packages, so it does not matter much to me either way. Regards Mattia |
From: Paul W. <pa...@mi...> - 2003-01-13 00:32:22
|
Earnie Boyd wrote: > I've been contemplating the next MinGW release. I'm wondering if I > shouldn't just package MSYS within this release. So here is the next poll. > > [X] Sounds great, do it. > [ ] Sounds stupid, why would you ever to that? > [ ] Sounds great, but 3 more mega byte for MinGW, ouch! > [ ] Other opinion __________________________________. > > Earnie. |
From: Mike T. <mi...@br...> - 2003-01-13 00:41:23
|
Hi Earnie. [x] Other opinion - At least three open source software packages include MinGW32 gcc to compile generated C code: Glasgow Haskell Compiler Gnu Common Lisp Maxima Having a separate MinGW32 compiler package makes inclusion of the compiler, binutils etc much easier for the maintainers of those packages (but not easier for yourself I'm sure!!). I think that it would be good to maintain separation between MSYS and MinGW32 installations unless you can't stand doing it any more. In the event that you do combine the packages, please keep the compiler in a separate directory tree (eg /mingw) and maintain it's ability to function separately from MSYS. Cheers Mike Thomas. |
From: Michael J. <po...@in...> - 2003-01-13 00:55:35
|
* Earnie Boyd <ear...@ya...> [030110 22:18]: > I've been contemplating the next MinGW release. I'm wondering if I > shouldn't just package MSYS within this release. So here is the next poll. > > [x] Sounds great, do it. > [ ] Sounds stupid, why would you ever to that? > [ ] Sounds great, but 3 more mega byte for MinGW, ouch! > [ ] Other opinion __________________________________. /michael |