[ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 1.7.34-002
Wed Dec 10 16:01:00 GMT 2014
On Dec 10 08:36, Alexey Pavlov wrote:
> Our changes to Cygwin runtime as we talk in the past are not
> acceptable to Cygwin upstream because have a different philosophy and
> have break some posix features. About half a year ago we talk about
> how integrate MSYS functionality into Cygwin upstream. As a result of
> this discussion was added this code:
> To try make MSYS functionality separate from original Cygwin DLL.
> But as our team is small and we have our real work too, we don't have
> time and in some parts necessary knowledges to finish this work.
As you may have noticed, our "team" is pretty small as well. It looks
a lot like it's smaller than yours.
> I think some changes can't be easily separated into external dll.
> So we open minded to incorporate with Cygwin if anyone will help with
> finishing this work.
The problem is not that your changes can or can't be implemented using
cgf's suggested change, the problem is that you simply never discussed
it. Cgf started a discussion of what changes might be required on
As you may have noticed, the mail explicitely mention that this was
supposed to be a discussion. He then checked in a preliminary patch to
The result: Nothing. You could have heard the crickets chirping in the
thread. No. Reply. At. All. Until 2013-10-21, almost three months
later, cgf asked if nobody is interested to pick up:
Reply: We're just busy. Then... nothing. Crickets again, the thread
collecting dust and cobwebs. Another four months later, cgf pinged you
guys and the result:
How do you expect any progress if you don't at least **discuss what's
necessary, and eventually code up and test changes?
Both of us definitely lost interest after Feb-2014, because, apparently
you weren't able to come up with anything. You have your solution,
which is a bunch of patches, and that's apparently enough for you.
There's no interest to follow up on a better solution, from what I see.
> In contrast with Cygwin developers, we don't have any problems with
> Arch Linux developers
You don't have interoperability issues with Arch Linux. I explained
what we were thinking of pretty detailed on the mingw-w64-public mailing
list. Without going into much detail now, the idea would have been
basically to keep the MSYS2 distro based on the latest Cygwin packages,
and have the behavioral change hidden behind the MSYS2 hook. You could
have a seamless integration between all of the Cygwin distro and the few
parts of the MSYS2 distro which really needed a patch. Basically MSYS2
could have been a subset or even an integral part of a Cygwin distro,
which would have (probably) benefitted all of us.
> So if you want to "grab" or "rip-off" (as you wish) our pacman, feel
> free to get it and use under Cygwin. We don't have any problems with
It's not really feasible because it requires to rebuild all packages.
We're also relying on an infrastructure which is kind of bound to the
setup and upset tools so far. Also, does pacman work without a basic
MSYS2 installed already, or do you have to have an MSYS2 install
to be able to run pacman?
If we could make pacman work with setup.ini, I wouldn't be unhappy
to have this as an accompanying CLI tool for installing Cygwin packages.
And if somebody thinks setup and the whole infrastructure is bad, all I
can say is, maybe, but somebody has to have *time* and *volition* to
implement something new. Something still operating as a GUI installer
to install a Cygwin distro from the ground up. And also something on
the server side to support the new layout. And the packager support.
As long as my reqeusts for volunteers goes unheard, I don't see how we
could change that.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Cygwin