From: Rob McDonald <robm@asdl.gatech.edu>
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 17:16:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Possibility of a MinGW version?
Message-ID: <003101c60976$f2912ff0$6900a8c0@sps>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0512241509240.24308@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>

> 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