WHY are you resurrecting this discussion?
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 03:30:37PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote (after a 2+ week
delay):
>On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Huh? What does "Red Hat" have to do with anything? "Red Hat" doesn't
>>provide the tools. Cygwin is a volunteer eff
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Huh? What does "Red Hat" have to do with anything? "Red Hat" doesn't
> provide the tools. Cygwin is a volunteer effort.
According to http://cygwin.com/license.html (and the link from there)
Red Hat does provide tools for some set of users at least
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Nix wrote:
>> mudflap is an offender as well, see Bugzilla #18244 (libmudflap
>> installs include/mf-runtime.h in version-independent path).
>>
>> Java has libdata/pkgconfig/libgcj.pc and include/ffi.h.
>>
>> And, like the man pages, the info files do not honor --program-suff
So, you think that when people need to build windows apps, the
"recommendation" should be that people should buy a linux box, put
their
sources on the linux box, figure out where to get or how to build a
cross compiler, build the sources, and then figure out how to transfer
the sources to the w
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:19:36AM +0300, Kai Ruottu wrote:
>Dave Korn wrote:
>>>What becomes to Cygwin and MinGW, the same attitude as followed with
>>>Linux, that "producing any apps for Windoze should happen only on
>>>Windoze, or that when one does it on some other host, it still should
>>>happ
On 29 Aug 2005, Gerald Pfeifer said:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Nix wrote:
>> --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs and
>> --program-{prefix,suffix,transform-name} and make slight adjustments
>> after installation (ditch libiberty.a and some locale and manpage stuff
>> that doesn't get its name suitab
Mike Stump wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 12:59 AM, Kai Ruottu wrote:
Is there any sane reasons for this on systems which never have had that
non-GNU native 'cc' ?
Consistency. This is only bad if one abhors consistency and
predicability. No?
I understand people coming from all
Dave Korn wrote:
What becomes to Cygwin and MinGW, the same attitude as followed with
Linux, that "producing any apps for Windoze should happen only on
Windoze, or that when one does it on some other host, it still should
happen just like on Windoze!", is totally weird to me.
It seems weir
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Nix wrote:
> This is nonsense. I have a dozen cross-compilers on this box, all
> installed into /usr. They do not collide as long as you configure with
> --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs and
> --program-{prefix,suffix,transform-name} and make slight adjustments
> after in
I have used MinGW on Linux to compile Windows
executables. I don't see why it could not be compiled
on other Unix variants. Try:
http://www.libsdl.org/extras/win32/cross/README.txt
and
http://www.mingw.org
Regards,
Andy
--- Ivan Novick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you recommend a solution
Most of this really doesn't deserve an answerr, but I'll give you a
couple anyway. You spend a lot of time blaming people for their
opinions, without any evidence that you've actually understood their
opinions right. Most of what I've snipped is completely untrue.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 10:59:5
On 26 Aug 2005, Kai Ruottu complained:
>Not even mentioning Linux and its GCC idea: "There can
> be only one!", seemingly borrowed from the "Highlander" -- that all the
> GCCs on a host system should use a common $prefix has seemingly been
> totally unknown by the Linux people and t
Original Message
>From: Mike Stump
>Sent: 26 August 2005 17:48
> On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 12:59 AM, Kai Ruottu wrote:
>> Is there any sane reasons for this on systems which never have had that
>> non-GNU native 'cc' ?
>
> Consistency. This is only bad if one abhors consistency and
On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 12:59 AM, Kai Ruottu wrote:
Is there any sane reasons for this on systems which never have had that
non-GNU native 'cc' ?
Consistency. This is only bad if one abhors consistency and
predicability. No?
I'll abstain from answering the other questions, I think
Ivan Novick wrote:
> Can you recommend a solution for compiling Windows DLLs on any
> variation of UNIX?
You can use GCC/MinGW built as a cross-compiler to do this. If you
do not mind a shameless plug, read:
http://ranjitmathew.hostingzero.com/phartz/gcj/bldgcj.html
HTH,
Ranjit.
--
Ranjit
Mike Stump wrote:
configure --with-headers=/cygwin/usr/include --with-libs=/cygwin/usr/
lib target=i386-pc-cygwin && make && make install
would be an example of how I used to build one up, see the gcc
documentation for details. --with-sysroot or some such might be
another way to to do it
On Aug 25, 2005, at 5:53 PM, Ivan Novick wrote:
Yes understood, but thats the whole point, cygwin runs on a windows
machine...
Odd, I was running it on a solaris machine not windows. Maybe you
forgot to recompile it on a UNIX machine?
configure --with-headers=/cygwin/usr/include --with-li
Ivan Novick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you recommend a solution for compiling Windows DLLs on any variation of
UNIX?
You want mingw, I think. The doc for this is somewhat scanty.
See e.g.
http://www.mingw.org/mingwfaq.shtml#faq-cross
http://wiki.wxwidgets.org/wiki.pl?Install_The_Mingw_Cro
On Aug 25, 2005, at 5:53 PM, Ivan Novick wrote:
Yes understood, but thats the whole point, cygwin runs on a windows
machine... I would like to use a UNIX machine to compile the
Windows DLL.
You can cross compile to cygwin using gcc.
An old link from google with "cross compiler cygwin" is
Yes understood, but thats the whole point, cygwin runs on a windows
machine... I would like to use a UNIX machine to compile the Windows
DLL.
From a system admin point of view, we would like to have a UNIX
compile host to produce the DLL, since we primarily only deal with
UNIX anyway.
H
On Aug 25, 2005, at 5:09 PM, Ivan Novick wrote:
Can you recommend a solution for compiling Windows DLLs on any
variation of UNIX?
Yes, just use cygwin, see the cygwin folks for details.
21 matches
Mail list logo
