From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: CYGWIN1.DLL Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 12:33:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010717153310.A10822@redhat.com> References: <20010717143212.B730@cygbert.vinschen.de> <20010717152323.F730@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3B54715D.5DD3CDDA@beamreachnetworks.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00957.html On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 10:09:49AM -0700, Eric M. Monsler wrote: >But, I did want to point out that there are good reasons for desiring a >statically linked executable that are not in violation of the cygwin >license. I don't think I've seen a good reason for this in this thread. The fact that you could have two disparate versions of the cygwin DLL on your system is not, in any way, an argument for a statically linked cygwin. Conflicts between two versions of cygwin have nothing to do with the DLLness of Cygwin. I am sure that there are probably some good reasons for a statically linked cygwin. I'm equally sure that it is unlikely to ever happen since all that we ever hear is from users who want developers to make this available for them. Since I'm not aware of any developer for whom this is an issue, it isn't likely to ever happen. I'd probably be reluctant to make the functionality available anyway for the reasons that Corinna mentions. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/