Gentoo Archives: gentoo-cygwin

From: Patrick Lauer <gentoo@×××××××××××××.de>
To: gentoo-cygwin@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-cygwin] interest in gentoo-cygwin
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:29:56
Message-Id: 1136806178.5922.37.camel@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-cygwin] interest in gentoo-cygwin by Trevor Forbes
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 20:27 +0930, Trevor Forbes wrote:
> I copied portage over from my main PC which eix reports it as 2.1_pre3-r1. > However, my Cygwin installation is not very clean so there could be > anything hiding in there.
That shouldn't be much of a problem, as long as you have python and a toolchain (make/gcc/...)
> / I think the linker problem was fixed some time ago, but if not it can > be fixed.
Would be nice ...
> The libc functions can be add when needed.
Lots of work.
> File semantics can be fixed, the whole Cygwin idea is to look like Linux..
Not really :-) Windows takes file semantics from DOS (legacy, no technical reason for that) An open file usually can't be modified - so Cygwin keeps a mapping table to fool you. This is not as reliable as "native" Unix - also many packages make implicit assumptions about e.g. file system layout which don't work well with Cygwin.
> I don't expect it to be easy, it may in the end, be unworkable. I am > just interested to see how far I can take it. Its just going to be a > slow process...
That's why I looked at SFU, it seems to be a bit smarter than Cygwin. Patrick -- -- gentoo-cygwin@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-cygwin] interest in gentoo-cygwin Trevor Forbes <t4bs@×××××××××××.au>