Re: Packaging software built with cygwin

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 04:31:15AM +1100, Nigel Stewart & Fiona Smith wrote:
>>I would suggest that, if it is desired to promote the development of
>>applications on the Cygwin platform, serious consideration be made to
>>making it as simple as possible to install only those portions of
>>Cygwin that the application requires.  This means just the necessary
>>DLLs, without all of the interactive use baggage.  Right now, that's
>>nearly impossible.
>
>Technically, the ideal solution would be to link against a set of
>static libraries.  Therefore requiring no extra install at all.  No DLL
>hell, no tech support, no "Cygwin is the problem" perception.  However,
>is it feasible for the Cygwin project to make this exception for the
>sake of utility?

It isn't a question of "making an exception".  It's a question of
someone doing the work.  I have no interest in it and it seems like no
one else is either since this has come up repeatedly in the last five
years.

If you are asking if we'd make an exception and not GPL something because
it is statically linked then the answer to that is "no".  Static linking
doesn't change this scenario a whit.

>This is the same reason I find myself experimenting with mingw, I would
>like to use Cygwin as the devel platform and target native binaries, or
>at least non Cygwin-DLL dependent binaries...

If you want binaries that don't use the UNIX API then of course you
should use MinGW.  That has nothing to do with with licensing issues.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/