Re: Possibility of a MinGW version?

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Dec 25, 2005, 01:47 UTC
Message-ID: <7vr782osm1.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <43ADDD6F.7010502@op5.se>

Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:
>>
>>> The fact that there are 39 bash'ish shell-scripts does little to
>>> help a native port...
>> Can you defend that "bash'ism" comment for all 39?  The one I
>> know of and would want to get rid of its bashism by rewriting is
>> git-grep, but most of them I thought was plain POSIX.
>
> Not really, no. I meant "there are 39 shell-scripts known to work with 
> bash but not necessarily known to fail with any other shell",...

I am not a Windows person (once I thought heard one particular version of NT was POSIX compliant but I did not believe it), but I suspect bash or not they may have trouble with POSIXism (iow UNIX heritage), and if the port is done the right way by adding compatibility layer they would end up reinventing Cygwin or something close to it...