Re: [PATCH] Define a version of lstat(2) with posix semantics

> 2009/3/20 Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>:
>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Alex Riesen wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/3/20 Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>:
>>>> Now, we _do_ have msysGit, you _do_ have shown the capability to fix
>>>> issues when they arise, so I do _not_ see any obstacle why you should
>>>> not go msysGit, rather than staying with the pain of trying to stay
>>>> POSIX-compatible, but not quite all the time.
>>> I understand. It is not pure POSIX compatibility I seek. I just can't
>>> use MinGW port, because I absolutely must use the cygwin environment
>>> (for "hysterical" reasons) and they don't play well together (tried,
>>> yes. Conflicting libraries, but you already know that).
>> Maybe we can work on those conflicting libraries?  After all, we do have a
>> "rebase.exe" tool now (for all those as puzzled by the naming as I was:
>> the rebase.exe tool can shift the memory range used by a .dll so that it
>> does not overlap with that one of another .dll).
> 
> As long as they can be made to coexist I'm fine. Wasn't the problem
> that MinGW/MSYS used cygwin1.dll if it were in PATH? Or was it
> something else with their supporting libraries?
> 
> My other problem is that the cygwin programs, and the worst of all - a
> proprietary compiler based on cygwin, must be in PATH. AFAIR, the
> presence of cygwin in PATH broken shell scripting.