Web lists-archives.com

Re: [Mingw-msys] Re: Earnie's views on adding packages dependent on MSYS

On 10/25/07, Gonzalo Garramuño <ggarra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> CMake already caters to both camps by offering two different generators.

The install location is not why there are separate MinGW and MSYS
generators.  It's because the shell behavior is different.

> Either way, as I pointed out, CMake is intended for *DEVELOPMENT*, not
> user distribution.

CMake is just a build tool.  Some people use build tools for their
distribution because they are lazy.  Some people habitually build
everything from source, even when binaries are available.  In the Unix
world, that culture used to be common.  It seems that modern packaging
technologies have changed what people think is a "Unixy" way of doing
things, LOL!  It's still common in the Linux tweakerhead culture, the
people who want everything to be as fast, small, and/or perfect as

> Whether it is a) or b) or c), they probably DON'T want to install the
> software globally without first giving it a test-run in an isolated
> place.

I think isolation is your specific issue and not something to set
general policy on.  Leaving MSYS completely out of it for a moment,
you simply don't like that Windows users dump everything in
%ProgramFiles%.  But, that's the standard drill.  There are no tiers
of search paths to isolate anything.  When Windows native developers
and end users want to isolate stuff, they put 'em in separate
directories.  In fact they do it to a fault, they're totally paranoid
about unwanted DLL Hell interactions.  Every Windows installer gives
you a choice of where to install your stuff.  If you don't want
%ProgramFiles%, you can put it in your own C:\Sandbox or whatever.

I think the issues are:

- do most MSYS developers throw away MSYS once they're done building?
That is the Windows Native development model.

- do most MSYS developers build and install everything inside the MSYS
environment and completely avoid the rest of Windows?  That is the
Unix-but-not-bloated-like-Cygwin model.

- is there no clear majority?

- do the MSYS core developers have an overriding opinion / veto on how
things are to be done?  That's the main thing we came here to ask.

> > Trying to
> > consolidate CMake with respect to Cygwin is outside the scope of the
> > present discussion.
> Partially correct.  However it is also partially true that the change I
> propose for MSYS could consolidate how cmake deals with *BOTH* Cygwin
> and MSYS, leading to less code to maintain and to no longer need to link
> it against (some) special libraries.

Here's a Wikipedia entry on the "You Ain't Gonna Need It" development
I don't know what appeals to Bill, but conflating MSYS issues with
Cygwin issues doesn't appeal to me, so I'm not going to debate it

Brandon Van Every

This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
Mingw-msys mailing list