Re: Packaging software built with cygwin

[Nigel Stewart & Fiona Smith <nigels@nigels.com>]

>>Technically, the ideal solution would be to link against a set
>>of static libraries. 
> 
> I believe this would require some significant work to make it possible.

	OK, it feels like we're getting into a circular
	argument.  I am not insisting that anyone do
	any particular thing to Cygwin.  My intention
	is to raise a perspective on a potential use
	of Cygwin which may or may not be desirable,
	feasible, popular or supported by the Cygwin
	community.

> Also, the most experienced Cygwin coders won't be that interested,
> because they *like* Cygwin-the-enviroment, as opposed to
> Cygwin-for-the-sake-of-one-program.

	Fair enough, I like using Cygwin-the-environment, but
	feel restricted in terms of deploying binaries into
	a non-cygwin environment.  Even though the Cygwin
	installation procedure has been greatly enhanced and
	streamlined, in my opinion Cygwin is too heavy-weight for
	an average computer user to install and administer.

	So, if this is outside the scope of what Cygwin is
	for, then that is a reasonable answer...  I'm finding
	mingw is working quite well (perhaps, the best of both
	worlds) but would prefer to keep my code clean (POSIX)
	rather than infected with extraneous win32 calls...

> You can - they just can't use the unix APIs.
> I use Cygwin for all my compilation needs, Cygwin-linked, or native Win32.

	So rather than upsetting the Cygwin faithful, would
	it be better to expand the support POSIX subset for
	mingw, rather than making Cygwin an easily managed
	light-weight dependency.

Regards,

Nigel Stewart


--
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/