From: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:07:22 GMT Subject: Re: Windows support Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On 7/26/07, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: > > > On 7/26/07, Christian MICHON wrote: > > > On 7/26/07, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: > > > > microperl [1] maybe? I haven't tried it yet. > > > > > > > > > > it won't work. I tried that few months back. > > > > > > plus the fact you'll still need perl modules. > > > > > > I just had a look at your gitbox gitweb. Did you really manage > > > to get busybox-1.6.1 to work with mingw ? > > > > Most of tools (that are included) work fine. Ash almost works. It can > > run git status, git commit, git clone.. and most of test cases. There > > are still some missing pieces and bugs to hunt down though. > > Thank you for working on this! > > However, I am not completely convinced that having a builtin shell is all > that useful. I for one would like to have MinGW busybox _separate_ from > git... I make MinGW busybox part of git for some reasons: - Making a full MinGW busybox would take lots of time. I don't need busybox for Windows. What I need is a shell and enough POSIX utilities to run git shell scripts without any dependencies. Windows users (including myself when I have to use Windows) hate dependencies. - I don't want MinGW busybox to be used outside of git (if it is installed separated from git), there are cygwin and msys already. I don't want to compete them. And I don't like conflicts (not sure though) because you have multiple UNIX emulations on the same system. - Making ash part of git has an advantage that you could tune the shell to fit git. Earlier you had to replace find/sort with /usr/bin/find and /usr/bin/sort in git scripts to avoid Windows alternatives. I don't like that. If you have control over the shell, you could make it ignore whatever program out there and use your own ones. This one is not a strong point though. - MinGW busybox (or gitbox as I call it now) utilizes compat/mingw.c and other stuff like run-command.c... Making it separate (as source code) duplicates code for nothing. - If you meant separating from git.exe binary, not from source code, then it's ok. > > Yes, you could not use the nice "ln -s busybox ash" idiom, since Windows > lacks symlinks, but you could still say "busybox ash" with a relatively > small, single executable. > > Ciao, > Dscho > > -- Duy