Re: [Chicken-users] CMake/MinGW build 325 is using wrong(Unix) filename separat

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Ian Oversby wrote:
> I'm not convinced that MinGW is always used simply to avoid the GPL.

Well with a qualifier like 'always' you can say anything you want.  :-)

>   My understanding is that MinGW is for building 'proper' Windows 
> applications with Win32 etc. 

Yes that is true.

> and cygwin is for building unix-y applications 

But you can do many of those with MinGW as well, so the distinction is 
not clear-cut.  Cygwin's Unix compatibility is certainly better than 
MinGW's, as Cygwin is focused on Unix and MinGW on native Windows 
development.  MinGW and MSYS generally only implement the amount of 
stuff necessary to get things working.  MSYS, in particular, is 
deliberately minimalistic and will always be so, according to its 
developers.  The Dev-Cpp IDE, on the other hand, has packaged up many 
open source libraries common in the Unix / Linux world.  They're the de 
facto source of MinGW packages, and actually my MinGW installation is 
Dev-Cpp, even though I don't currently use Dev-Cpp for any C/C++ 
development.

> with a huge slow compatibility library to bridge the gulf between 
> Win32 and Posix.

I have no idea if it's either huge or slow.  It's certainly larger than 
what MinGW offers.

>   In my opinion, cygwin provides a somewhat nicer environment than 
> MSYS for a Unix person 

Yes it does.  Cygwin is a Windows avoidance solution.  I'm not 
personally interested in Windows avoidance though.  The whole reason I 
implemented the CMake build is to make the Windows support first class, 
instead of always being an afterthought that breaks.  I have no plan 
whatsoever to spend any significant time on Cygwin corner cases.  If 
there's a Cygwin pundit out there, they can happily take responsibility 
for those aspects of the build, and I will work with them on it.  The 
beauty of open source is that people can pool their disparate expertise 
and agendas.  CMake is a good lingua franca, and it has nice byproducts 
like Linux buildability, MacOS buildability, etc.  But let's face it, 
each platform requires its own pundit to get the best support.  I am and 
will remain a MinGW / MSYS guy.

> so it is quite conceivable that someone would want to use cygwin for 
> the build environment but use MinGW for the compiler / libraries 
> because they want a proper Windows application.  

Well then they're stupid, frankly.  When you build a build, the #1 
priority is for it to be reliable and work properly.  Mixing and 
matching Cygwin shells, Cygwin compilers, MinGW compilers, and last but 
not least, Unix vs. MinGW vs. MSYS CMake generators, is a recipe for 
disaster.  Now, if there's some lone wolf out there to gainsay me, who 
does this sort of thing all the time, and reports on what a wonderful 
experience they're having with it, great.  I'll eat crow.  Especially if 
they can find me 1000 other people replicating their pleasant 
experiences.  I think it is far more likely that I'll be awarded the 
Brooklyn Bridge in a clearinghouse sweepstakes.  Microsoft employees 
have an epithet for people who do kinky stuff like this: "Works on my box."

> Mind you, I don't really care if the cygwin / MinGW combo is 
> unsupported as MSYS is sufficient for me to build chicken and I only 
> need to do that once (for some value of once).

Indeed.  The beauty of open source is that those who care, can do the 
work.  I suffered for years at the hands of Unixen who didn't care about 
Windows, not Chicken per se but various open source projects.  I went 
and did something about it.


Cheers,
Brandon Van Every