Re: Possibility of a MinGW version?

From: Rob McDonald <robm@asdl.gatech.edu>
Date: Dec 25, 2005, 17:16 UTC
Message-ID: <003101c60976$f2912ff0$6900a8c0@sps>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0512241509240.24308@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>

Show 5 quoted lines

> Well, cygwin is everything but unmaintained. It's unfair to blaim the good
> work of the cygwin folks if you can't get it to work. I have *never* had a
> problem I could not solve with cygwin. In particular, *no* package got
> messed up when I installed/upgraded another package. Before you ask: I use
> cygwin extensively.

I'm sorry to have seemed harsh in my criticism. I have not used Cygwin seriously in a couple years. At the time, as a user, I saw no noticable progress. The project seemed dead. I always had trouble with their package management program. I'm glad you've never had similar problems.

> As I already stated, there are two *big* showstoppers when it comes to
> port git to MinGW.

Thanks very much for those comments, that is exactly the kind of information I was hoping to get out of this thread.

> Okay, I'll bite. Could you please port python to MinGW?

As I said, my experience porting apps to MinGW has been very limited in scope. Essentially limited to programs that don't use any unixisms. I see no need to port Python, they already have a native version. And, you could always use Jython if they didn't.

> You're welcome. Just be sure to tackle the hard problems first, else you
> end up having wasted lots of valuable time for nothing.

Thanks for the insight. I didn't think the shell and / vs \ were going to be the real issues.

Rob