1 |
Patrick Lauer wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
>On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 20:27 +0930, Trevor Forbes wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> |
6 |
>>I copied portage over from my main PC which eix reports it as 2.1_pre3-r1. |
7 |
>>However, my Cygwin installation is not very clean so there could be |
8 |
>>anything hiding in there. |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>That shouldn't be much of a problem, as long as you have python and a toolchain |
12 |
>(make/gcc/...) |
13 |
> |
14 |
> |
15 |
> |
16 |
>>/ I think the linker problem was fixed some time ago, but if not it can |
17 |
>>be fixed. |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>> |
20 |
>Would be nice ... |
21 |
> |
22 |
> |
23 |
>>The libc functions can be add when needed. |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> |
26 |
>Lots of work. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> |
29 |
>>File semantics can be fixed, the whole Cygwin idea is to look like Linux.. |
30 |
>> |
31 |
>> |
32 |
>Not really :-) |
33 |
>Windows takes file semantics from DOS (legacy, no technical reason for |
34 |
>that) |
35 |
>An open file usually can't be modified - so Cygwin keeps a mapping table |
36 |
>to fool you. |
37 |
>This is not as reliable as "native" Unix - also many packages make |
38 |
>implicit assumptions about e.g. file system layout which don't work well |
39 |
>with Cygwin. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> |
42 |
> |
43 |
>>I don't expect it to be easy, it may in the end, be unworkable. I am |
44 |
>>just interested to see how far I can take it. Its just going to be a |
45 |
>>slow process... |
46 |
>> |
47 |
>> |
48 |
>That's why I looked at SFU, it seems to be a bit smarter than Cygwin. |
49 |
> |
50 |
>Patrick |
51 |
> |
52 |
> |
53 |
Tks, looks like I have lots to do.... :) |
54 |
|
55 |
Trevor |
56 |
-- |
57 |
gentoo-cygwin@g.o mailing list |