This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: RFC: linux compatibility
- To: "Cygwin Mailing List (E-mail)" <cygwin at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: RFC: linux compatibility
- From: Chris Faylor <cgf at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:26:52 -0400
- References: <20001013211422.6698.qmail@web122.yahoomail.com>
- Reply-To: cygwin at sources dot redhat dot com
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