On 24 Nov 2001 at 20:01, Robert Collins wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >I don't think so, there's no reason that the source for utils isn't
> > > >cygwin-1.5.3-1-src.tar.bz2.
> > >
> > > I thought of that but then I'd have to release a version of cygwin
> sources
> > > with winsup/utils that had no relationship to the net release.
> Maybe that's
> > > not a problem. You don't think we'd have people trying to build
> cygwin itself
> > > from these sources?
>
> ...
>
> > Whether it was due to inexperience with building setup.exe or due to
> something else, I ended up resorting to a
> > complete rebuild of cygwin1.dll before setup.exe would even begin to
> link properly (second run). It still failed on second
> > run. By that point, however, I had a very good idea of what was
> needed before a so-called "clean" build of Setup.exe could
> > be generated.
>
> Hmm, do you have those logs by any chance? 'All' setup.exe needs is
> w32api, mingw, zlib and libbz2
I actually put the source in a place separate from the cygwin
tree, so that may have been the problem. If running under Cygwin
environment, the -mno-cygwin is selected by setup make (thus the
mingw32 default). I am assuming a Cygwin build environment since the
Mingw compiler (gcc/g++) has no need for a -mno-cygwin switch.
Afaik, the only gcc build that needs that particular switch is the
Cygwin version.
Unfortunately, and I am likely mistaken on this point, Cygwin gcc
appears to require cygwin1.dll, doesn't it? Then there is ld, bash, et. al.
as well for Cygwin build. automake, autoconfig, et. al. are futher
considerations as they will not run without the cygwin1.dll being linked
somewhere (Cygwin bash?) for as long as you are using Cygwin build
environment, right?
>
> > So, to address the query cgf presented, the possibility is definitely
> there that someone may attempt to rebuild all
> > of Cygwin from nothing but the winsup/utils. We already know that
> Setup.exe has a certain dependency, in its current
> > form, on cygwin1.dll as well as several other utilities (bash, bz2,
> zlib, etc.) that may or may not be included as part of a
> > winsup/utils source collection.
>
> Actually, setup.exe is a mingw app, not a cygwin app, so having no
> cygwin source should be fine.
Can setup.exe be built without Cygwin being installed?
>
> Anyway, I'm personally in favour of pointing folk at CVS, at least for
> the immediate future, as its
> a) simple for us.
> b) GPL compliant (folk who get the binary can get the source at the same
> time)
> c) can be changed in the future with no ill effect.
>
> And unlike cygwin, there's little reason for folk to want a custom
> version of setup. Indeed, if they have such, then chances are they have
> the nounce to manage the source themselves.
Granted. I agree.
Paul G.
