This is the mail archive of the cygwin@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: RFC: linux compatibility


On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 02:14:22PM -0700, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>--- "Gary R. Van Sickle" <tiberius@braemarinc.com> wrote:
>> As a user, it seems to me that this should be how the priorities work out:
>> 
>> 1.  POSIX compliant, if for no other reason than it's the right thing to do.
>> 2.  "GNU compliant", by which I mean essentially that anything that links
>> and runs with glibc should work with Cygwin.
>> 3.  "Other-Unii compatible", meaning that aything that can be added to the
>> Cygwin mix that doesn't violate the above and yet allows it to be more
>> compatible with other distributions should be added.
>> 
>> I don't see "which Unix do we emulate?" as a sensible question.  Cygwin is
>> intended to be 'Unix on Windows', not 'Linux on Windows' or 'BSD on Windows'
>> or 'Solaris on Windows'.
>> 
>> Isn't it?
>> 
>
>Well, isn't Linux intended to be Unix for the PC?  I think the discussion is
>about standards and DJ is asking if Linux should be the standard to follow.  I
>believe that Linux is both POSIX and GNU compliant which covers your 1 and 2
>numbered points.  As for number 3, that's a different question, although I
>agree that if it adds to portability then it might be considered.

My biggest concern is backwards compatibility.

Is it worth Linux compatibility if it means "cygwin2.dll"?

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]