I spent just a small amount of time trying to use/install/build uwin/ast.
My experience was good and bad.
I'm mainly a Win32 user and that's what I used.
The base Win32 binary installer + X Windows installers work.
I would prefer a somewhat smaller base -- like maybe no services.Or prompting.
I was surprised good and bad to see sshd running.
I would prefer that the install not deny me access to some of the files.But
that is easily fixed. I take ownership and then reacl.
The /apparent/ but not yet realized by me ease of building the system from
source, esp. from just sh+ratz+package, is attractive.
The /apparent/ but not yet clear to me more liberal license than that of Cygwin
is attractive (below).
That it includes an X Windows server is somewhat attractive. I have some X code
I'd like to try on Windows.
Ok, now my big complaints:
1) several packages appear to be out of date.Some packages have no source
distribution. For example mawl. For example X Windows. cdt appears old.
It sounds like some of the source archives overlap, but I don'tthink the
overlapping ones had the same dates.
Given that there aren't a HUGE number of packages, some "all" option would be
nice.
2) Attempting to build the system from source appears to lead to much
different results than that the installer produces. Besides that I got
compilation errors that I haven't dug into yet, the file system layout is
different. This seems wrong.
The binaries claim to be for a "cygwin.i386" flavor.I don't quite get the
relationship between uwin and cygwin.I get, sure, that cygwin can be used to
bootstrap using ratz/package.I get, sure, that uwin doesn't really include a
compiler, possibly a good thing.But, e.g. being "cygwin" implies a possible
cygwin1.dll dependency.
The directions are not clear as to if I must alter %PATH%.They have some wierd
wording about some things requiring it.Is the point, like, if I use nmake, I
need to alter %PATH%?And it is just..I installed to
\uwin...\uwin\arch\cygwin.i386 or such?I forget now if the X binaries were
there -- but actually, the X binarieshave no source, so I they were installed
with a binary installer, whichputs the files elsewhere entirely.
I don't think I ever found a short summary of the license.That would be nice.
I will fiddle around more here.I realize my report here is all very
unscientific and devoid of details.
uwin looks like a good alternative to Cygwin.I'll have to find how it
implements fork/vfork/exec, see if it isefficient unlike Cygwin (I get that
fork would be quite difficult, butvfork+exec maybe not..)
Do you have any AMD64 (or IA64?) Windows versions?
- Jay
_______________________________________________
uwin-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/uwin-users
