This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: cygwin bughunt (FAQ alert?)
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:07:39 +0100
- Subject: Re: cygwin bughunt (FAQ alert?)
- References: <79F81D5F4790D344B05F489CE2AC8AB71097D8@dubexdc03.dubex.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <41F86B25.62E90624@dessent.net> <20050127140039.GI23885@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
- Reply-to: Talk Amongst Yourselves <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
On Jan 27 09:00, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 08:16:37PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
> >I was actually a little curious about this, so I did a little
> >experiment. I sequestered away my normal Cygwin installation and
> >started with a fresh install. Aside from the default "base" packages
> >that setup.exe intstalls out of the gate, I found that I only had to
> >actually select three packages in setup: gcc, make, and perl. (and Perl
> >was required only for gendef it seems.)
> Well, that's it then.
> This is all WAY too complicated.
> How can we possibly expect people to do in-depth debugging of problems
> in the DLL if we require them to have gcc, make, and perl on their
> systems? We can't expect people to be *perl hackers* if they want to
> build cygwin. Just the perl requirement alone would mean that they'd
> waste months learning perl.
If it comes to that, we also require them to run Cygwin to build Cygwin
on Windows. That's a pretty big hurdle, isn't it?