Re: CYGWIN1.DLL

[Andrej Borsenkow <Andrej.Borsenkow@mow.siemens.ru>]

yOn Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> 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.
>

Actually, it is very good argument *against* static linking. In this case
nothing can help if you have two different programs linked with two
different versions. Somebody will have to rebuild every single program
with new version of Cygwin as soon it is released ... nightmare.

Probably, intelligent setup that checks for existence of cygwin dll
and download/update it only if needed makes more sense.

-andrej


--
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/