On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 09:49:34AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: >Chris, > I'm approaching a point with libgetopt++ that I'll want to roll >it into setup. This will (obviously) affect the single-build procress, >so I'm hoping that you can confirm or suggest alterations to my plan: > >I think that as a general purpose library, it should sit at >winsup/libgetopt++ or even a level above. However the binary linked into >setup.exe needs to be built knowing about setup's String class (as >opposed to the C++ standard basic_string). > >So here's my idea: >we put the library at winsup/libgetopt++ >we make a symlink in the source tree at cinstall/libgetopt++ to >../libgetopt++ > >During configure time setup sub-configures libgetopt++ as a static only >library in cinstall/libgetopt++ > >In the future if any other programs want to start using it, we make >winsup subconfigure winsup/libgetopt++. > >What do you think?
I think that libgetopt++ probably belongs at the same level as winsup but there are some, er, political issues that need to be dealt with if that is the case. So, for now, I guess making it a winsup/cygwin sibling makes sense. Btw, if you want to set up a web page off the cygwin directory, that's ok, too. I don't think I could justify a new top-level web page given the fact that I've rejected some other attempts to start up new projects on sourceware due to resource limitations but adding it into the cygwin hierarchy should be ok. cgf
