Actually, Cygwin was probably a good idea about 10 years ago. However, nowadays you can throw Linux on any garden variety PC, so why bother to fool around with Cygwin?
Stuart > > As I dig through the archives, I see this topic coming up from time to time. > However, I don't understand the history behind why cygwin is not supported > using the standard build scripts. > > It appears (after testing for a month) that building under cygwin is > possible with minor changes to the source (based on sources from the 2005 > geda suite ISO and the cygwin 5.0 setup program). For instance, the hardest > was in gnetlist given a strange interaction with *optarg being defined in > parsecmd.c (commenting out the unneccessary declaration fixed the problem). > > Either I'm way off the beaten path (and nobody else cares), or I'm missing > something during my testing and will hit it when I get around to doing > something useful. > > Larrie. > > >
