| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 11:13 +0200, tchiwam wrote: |
| 2 |
> I would think this port would potentially open the biggest market to |
| 3 |
> gentoo, and the scariest one too... |
| 4 |
Not really. |
| 5 |
Cygwin is so horribly broken in some respects that sometimes I think a |
| 6 |
complete rewrite would be easier ... |
| 7 |
(e.g. broken linker, broken pathname handling, ...) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> In order I would say: |
| 10 |
> -Learn about OSX and "system provided services" |
| 11 |
OSX is BSD. Windows is windows. |
| 12 |
The base of OSX is mostly usable for Portage, the base of Windows has |
| 13 |
nothing in common with Unix. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> -Take a look at the BSD and OSX to see if there is QC things that would |
| 16 |
> be usefull to bring over. |
| 17 |
Gentoo/BSD has led to some nice portage modifications, but Cygwin would |
| 18 |
need some really weird adaptations. I doubt that much could be |
| 19 |
transferred from the BSD porting. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Having Portage on Win32 would be really neat if only from a PR point of |
| 22 |
view, there seems to be some interest (mainly because cygwin has no |
| 23 |
concept of package managment), but it won't be end-user friendly and |
| 24 |
useful for a long time. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Patrick |
Archives