statically linked replacement for cygpath - anyone got such a beast?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 06:03:42PM -0400, Motta, Frank wrote:
>Thanks for the insight Christopher.  That bit was the easiest and first
>part of the implementations that I have made and the one I am currently
>writing.  However, it offers no new information that can be used toward
>the point of the post in content nor subject.

Actually, it does: 

cgf wrote:
>If you are just looking to figure out paths in a non-cygwin-make then I
>think your best bet would be to test for the existence of a cygpath and
>use that.

You could use the existence of cygpath as a way of determining if Cygwin
is installed.

>The title specifically states statically linked and replacement for
>Cygpath.  It doesn't state the use or non-use of cygwin nor its DLL.
>Nor were any concerns of the licenses were even mentioned in my
>original post.

Your original message *does* talk about building the cygwin version of
cygpath.  Which is GPLed itself.  Which, if you statically linked it
would be using bits of the Cygwin DLL.

>My 2nd post only states that I am unconcerned about the license and
>further explains that I need something that has no reliance on cygwin
>and will work on DOS/Windows with or without cygwin as well as work on
>Posix (presumably without it).

If you were looking for something which has no reliance on Cygwin then
you shouldn't have said:

>On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:50:07 -0400, Motta, Frank wrote:
>>It appears that there is no option to build a statically linked cygpath
>>(I can't even build the cygwin base and utils from the download
>>received from cygwin.com/setup.exe...

You were pretty clearly trying to build something cygwin-related there
and that's what led me to respond.

>Sadly it appears that I will have to write it from scratch again.
>Since I was unable to gleen anything from this list nor other resources
>on the internet then it will lack any GPL content.  Content that would
>be a justification and driving the need to publicize the result rather
>than moving on to other projects.  This utility will again disappear
>into the ether like the previous 13 such versions.
>
>If I find that I cannot gain a reliable implementation based on lack of
>a formalized solution then I will again be forced to tell the users
>install Cygwin on the same computer will void the support agreement.

I don't run this mailing list but it's hard to see how any of the above
has anything to do with crossgcc.

cgf

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq