Re: Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one?
On 5/21/19 1:55 PM, LRN wrote: On 20.05.2019 21:49, Bob Cochran wrote: On 5/20/19 10:27 AM, Jose Isaias Cabrera wrote: Erik Soderquist, on Monday, May 20, 2019 10:16 AM, wrote... On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 3:44 PM Bob Cochran wrote: "Cygwin? this is probably still functional, but now can be considered a (pre)historic solution." The words of the ignorant, in my opinion. Cygwin has done an excellent job of maintaining currency and usefulness. Indeed. I have been using cygwin since 1996-7. Can't remember the exact year, but it has been God-sent, and it has been in every Windows machine I have had control. Just my 0.02. Thanks. Thank you to everyone who has replied to my question whether this was a good use case for Cygwin! It was great to read all of the replies and see that I'm in sync with this project & its users / developers. I've read the actual thread on OpenOCD ML, and i've looked at the links posted there. I probably should have subscribed to OpenOCD ML, but i'm too lazy to do so and will write here instead. Thank you LRN for the excellent write up(s). I'm going to summarize this and add it to our web article as alternatives to our approach. Please also consider that Cygwin worked without a hassle and is on all of our PCs. Time is tight and maybe I can be build a native Windows OpenOCD exe that works with our hardware, but maybe I can't without burning a lot of time. At this point, we're good to go with Cygwin. Also, I want students that we're working with to install Cygwin on their PCs. I never bothered to learn complicated Power shell syntax & commands because I never needed to - just opened a Cygwin terminal instead. And I'm reluctant to install other translation projects on my PC like MSYS2 and MinGW because of bloat, support, and security concerns. Try to keep it as simple as possible! But anyway, the main point of my email is to thank you for taking the time to write this up. Bob Basically, the thread had three participants: *kristof mulier: wanted to get OpenOCD binaries for Windows, tried MSYS2, but didn't get satisfactory results; posted a link to a guide for building OpenOCD with MSYS2, written by some 3rd party *you: posted a link to a guild for building OpenOCD with Cygwin *Liviu Ionescu: pointed out that you should be using mingw-w64, said that Cygwin is prehistoric Liviu Ionescu seems to be a Microsoft fanboy, since he advocated for the use of WSL (i already said earlier what i think of WSL). However, he wasn't wrong when he said that you should use MinGW. If a piece of software can be built with MinGW, then you generally should do so, unless there are specific reasons to avoid that (compatibility, subtle porting bugs, etc). It seems to be the case for OpenOCD. kristof mulier seems to have weak developer-fu, and got a bit confused. The MSYS2 guide that he used pointed to a MSYS2 package git repo, and kristof assumed that the repo in question contained OpenOCD source code (which is supposedly why he was getting an old version of OpenOCD compiled all the time). That is not the case[0]. MSYS2 package repo contains small buildscripts for the appropriate packages. The reason he was getting an old version is that the version (git revision, in case of OpenOCD-git) is hardcoded into PKGBUILD file (which he didn't edit, uncritically following the guide; the author of the guide didn't concern himself with getting OpenOCD from lastest git master HEAD, and thus didn't mention that detail). Therefore i still sand on my advice: either cross-compile from Cygwin, or try MSYS2 (the irony here is that your Cygwin guide describes *almost exactly* how one can build OpenOCD from MSYS2). [0]: at least, i assume so; i don't really use MSYS2 repos or its package manager, therefore i could be mistaken -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: go through duplicate commands
On 2019-05-21 10:17, Eric Blake wrote: > On 5/21/19 11:10 AM, A GS wrote: >> What about making "up" go through duplicate commands? I think this is the >> behaviour on some linuxes but I don't know the specifics. That would be neat. > > 'info bash HISTCONTROL' > > It sounds like you are asking for the Cygwin /etc/profile (or the > skeleton .bashrc file) to be tweaked to add a HISTCONTROL=ignoredups so > that new installations automatically turn on that feature of bash. But > in the meantime, you can modify your own ~/.bashrc to turn it on for > yourself. To get the result you probably expect set "HISTCONTROL=ignoreboth:erasedups" -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one?
LRN, on Tuesday, May 21, 2019 01:55 PM, wrote... > >Therefore i still sand on my advice: either cross-compile from Cygwin, or try >MSYS2 (the irony here is that your Cygwin guide describes *almost exactly* how >one can build OpenOCD from MSYS2). I have never heard of MSYS2. It looks interesting. Thanks. josé -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one?
On 20.05.2019 21:49, Bob Cochran wrote: > On 5/20/19 10:27 AM, Jose Isaias Cabrera wrote: >> Erik Soderquist, on Monday, May 20, 2019 10:16 AM, wrote... >>> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 3:44 PM Bob Cochran wrote: >>> "Cygwin? this is probably still functional, but now can be considered a (pre)historic solution." >>> The words of the ignorant, in my opinion. Cygwin has done an >>> excellent job of maintaining currency and usefulness. >> Indeed. I have been using cygwin since 1996-7. Can't remember the exact >> year, but it has been God-sent, and it has been in every Windows machine I >> have had control. Just my 0.02. Thanks. > > > Thank you to everyone who has replied to my question whether this was a > good use case for Cygwin! It was great to read all of the replies and > see that I'm in sync with this project & its users / developers. > I've read the actual thread on OpenOCD ML, and i've looked at the links posted there. I probably should have subscribed to OpenOCD ML, but i'm too lazy to do so and will write here instead. Basically, the thread had three participants: *kristof mulier: wanted to get OpenOCD binaries for Windows, tried MSYS2, but didn't get satisfactory results; posted a link to a guide for building OpenOCD with MSYS2, written by some 3rd party *you: posted a link to a guild for building OpenOCD with Cygwin *Liviu Ionescu: pointed out that you should be using mingw-w64, said that Cygwin is prehistoric Liviu Ionescu seems to be a Microsoft fanboy, since he advocated for the use of WSL (i already said earlier what i think of WSL). However, he wasn't wrong when he said that you should use MinGW. If a piece of software can be built with MinGW, then you generally should do so, unless there are specific reasons to avoid that (compatibility, subtle porting bugs, etc). It seems to be the case for OpenOCD. kristof mulier seems to have weak developer-fu, and got a bit confused. The MSYS2 guide that he used pointed to a MSYS2 package git repo, and kristof assumed that the repo in question contained OpenOCD source code (which is supposedly why he was getting an old version of OpenOCD compiled all the time). That is not the case[0]. MSYS2 package repo contains small buildscripts for the appropriate packages. The reason he was getting an old version is that the version (git revision, in case of OpenOCD-git) is hardcoded into PKGBUILD file (which he didn't edit, uncritically following the guide; the author of the guide didn't concern himself with getting OpenOCD from lastest git master HEAD, and thus didn't mention that detail). Therefore i still sand on my advice: either cross-compile from Cygwin, or try MSYS2 (the irony here is that your Cygwin guide describes *almost exactly* how one can build OpenOCD from MSYS2). [0]: at least, i assume so; i don't really use MSYS2 repos or its package manager, therefore i could be mistaken signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: go through duplicate commands
On 5/21/19 11:10 AM, A GS wrote: > What about making "up" go through duplicate commands? I think this is the > behaviour on some linuxes but I don't know the specifics. That would be neat. 'info bash HISTCONTROL' It sounds like you are asking for the Cygwin /etc/profile (or the skeleton .bashrc file) to be tweaked to add a HISTCONTROL=ignoredups so that new installations automatically turn on that feature of bash. But in the meantime, you can modify your own ~/.bashrc to turn it on for yourself. -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
go through duplicate commands
What about making "up" go through duplicate commands? I think this is the behaviour on some linuxes but I don't know the specifics. That would be neat. ls -a ls ls This would go from ls to ls -a in one (not two) "up"s. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: The adventure of building Bedrock in Cygwin: any help would be appreciated
Hans-Bernhard Bröker, on Monday, May 20, 2019 04:23 PM, wrote... >Am 20.05.2019 um 21:12 schrieb Jose Isaias Cabrera: > >This is the most portability-ignorant open source package I've seen in a >long time, and by a very wide margin. They don't even _try_ to >accomodate the notion that there might be anything else but Linux left >under the sun. You said it, but I agreed. :-) >> so according to Bedrock [1] this is all I need to build it: > >Well, in all fairness, those are just the instructions for one type of >Linux distribution. There are others, but those would not get you any True, but I thought it would be the closest "linux flavor" in comparison to Cygwin. There is a set of Mac build steps. I started with that. First built brew in cygwin, but then when tried to do 'brew install gcc@6' got a bunch of errors and I just thought that building gcc6 from scratch without brew would be the best way to go, but it wasn't. >In short, this whole source is doomed to fail utterly on any system >whose C standard library is not GLIBC. Reminiscing way back in the days... Marlon Brando, "You don't understand! I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody instead of a bum, which is what I am." -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
