This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Using mysql 5.1.16 beta client libraries on cygwin
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:09:56AM +0100, Roelf Renkema wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 10:06:26PM +0100, Roelf Renkema wrote:
>>> Eric Lilja wrote:
>>>> As many of you may know, the binary distribution of MySQL for Windows
>>>> only ships with MSVC++ libraries. They have no binary distribution for
>>>> Cygwin. So what do you do if you want to develop c or c++ programs
>>>> talking to a native Windows MySQL server using the cygwin tools?
>>> That brings me to a question I wanted to ask for a long time?
>>>
>>> Where's cygwin's php and/or mysql. They probably got a lot going
>>> against them but they are peoples choise. At least some communication
>>> would be nice. And now riscing the lart, why doesn't cygwin cross the
>>> border and take advantage of ported software. Lets face it, cygwin
>>> will never bring posix to windows, but if it just posixs windows with a
>>> few cheats that nobody cares about hey.......
>>
>> What in the world are you talking about?
>
>Ah Chris, I love it when you trigger. Especially when you turn on that
>innocent, I do not comprehend look. Let me start off with... Sure your
>right.... in a white and black world.
If you have points to make, you can make them without claiming that I
am being disingenuous.
>>Not bring POSIX to Windows?
>>
>>We've already done that (and we're not even alone here).
>
>No you didn't, even MS didn't. Do I have to point out the recently put
>
>'Calling Cygwin python from the "DOS" shell vs. from BASH'
>
>doesn't that illustrate just what I'm saying. Cygwin is only trying to
>bring posix to windows. When it would succeed it would be
>transparently usable. Hey but thats just MHO.
>
>If you are further refering to QEMU then again this is just an
>emulator, and a (processor)time consuming one as well. Rather use
>cygwin.
I'm not referring to QEMU and running python from an MS-DOS command line
has nothing to do with POSIX.
You seem to be grasping at straws and, thereby, proving my point.
>> Take advantage of ported software?
>>
>> We've done that too.
>
>OK here you got me puzzeled? Why isn't cygwin apache windows PHP
>compatible? A shoot wrong question. Please state an example. Excluding
>setup.exe.
99% of the packages available from setup.exe are "ported software".
If you mean "ported" in the sense of: It will work on Windows but it
won't understand Cygwin path names, fifos, unix-domain sockets, or
signals, then hopefully my rephrasing will serve to illustrate why it
would be a bad idea to package non-Cygwin applications with Cygwin.
For the record, I don't know anything about PHP other than someone whose
abilities I value highly has said that it was hard to get working with
Cygwin. The fact that PHP is not part of the Cygwin distribution may
mean that Cygwin's POSIX implementation is not perfect, that PHP is
using non-standard "stuff", or that Microsoft is has coerced Brian into
claiming PHP is hard to port. I suspect I know which of those is the
reason why there isn't a PHP in the distribution but the bottom line
is that no one has cared enough to add it.
OTOH, if a native PHP can be made to work flawlessly with Cygwin apache
then someone should ITP it.
>>Where would the supposed mysql or php come from? Are you supposing
>>that a cabal (Hey! Maybe it's Microsoft) is keeping some poor
>>downtrodden mysql port away from the distribution because it isn't
>>pure-POSIX or something?
>
>I don't know hence my question. Are you getting old. The Chris I got
>to know over the years was reading before shooting off. I'm just
>trying to understand what keeps back a port or (yes there it is): a
>bridge.
So, you claim to have been reading the mailing list for years but have
have failed to comprehend how packages make it into the Cygwin
distribution. I think I'd be a little careful suggesting senility
there.
To indulge your question however: It has been stated many times that the
whole point of Cygwin is to provide a linux/unix/POSIX layer which can
be used to port packages from linux/unix. It is not intended as a
one-stop shopping location for any Windows program which happens to look
like a linux/unix program.
If you're suggesting that this somehow be changed, then the simple
answer is "no thanks". There really doesn't have to be an explanation
here other than "I don't wanna" since I and all of the other people who
maintain cygwin are only doing what we want to do not what the market
wants or what the "user community" wants.
>>It seems like you're indulging in some magical thinking here. You
>>should stop that. It doesn't work too well with computers.
>
>Well I don't seem to have a problem with any computer, DOS, Windows,
>Linux, Apple whatever, please elaborate on magical thinking. I'm not
>sure I get what you mean. Of course thats probably just my problem. I
>don't get it. Feel free to state that as well. I like to indulge
>though, I must admit :-)
Ah yes. The old assertion of expertise - a staple of the Cygwin mailing
list.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/