This is the mail archive of the 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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Potential problems with cygwin GCC and -mno-cygwin switch

On 8 Jan 2002 at 19:14, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 05:29:14PM -0500, Soren Andersen wrote:
> >This lack of sponsorship maybe is also part of the noted tendency for
> >minGW priciple persons to manifest some, uhh, let's say testiness.
> I've been reading the mingw mailing lists for a while and I really don't see
> anything like this.  Most of the replies are very courteous.

Of course they are. I never meant to suggest otherwise. But sometimes...

> They don't seem to have anyone like me, for instance.  :-)

I don't know what to make of that, precisely. It doesn't seem to me that 
you manifest particularly obnoxious behavior.

> >I've seen all this from certain people involved in minGW.  Overall,
> >though, its an amazing thing that minGW even exists, and has
> >accomplished as much as it as.
> I really don't see very much of this at all.  I'm surprised to see this
> observation.

Well, everyone experiences different things. That is a large general truth 
about life in all sorts of realms, far beyond "just online" or "just among 
hackers on mailing lists".

But specifically in reply, Chris, since I was, I thought, VERY careful to 
preface and intersperse all my comments with things like "I don't mean to 
dis anyone at minGW," I hope that somehow an overly broad and vague and 
erronious impression isn't created by this, your response, which seems much 
more "concerned [as in "worried"] than I feel would be warranted by a 
reading of my message that accurately grasped my intent (which was first of 
all to praise cygwin).

> >One thing that is pretty clear to me is that there is no one person,
> >aside maybe from Mumit Khan, who can legitimately present him/herself
> >as "speaking for" minGW.  I think that needs to be acknowledged if
> >there's been some impression that "minGW is criticizing cygwin".  minGW is
> >first and foremost a free-for-all, a collaborative exercize that moves
> >forward by fits and starts.  In any such assemblage of personalities there
> >are bound to be some outspoken individuals (no sh__:-) who express
> >frustrations they are having in a way that isn't echoed by more silent
> >participants.

> There is a group of core MingGW maintainers, or at least that's what I
> understand. 

> A couple of the MinGW maintainers have actually indicated
> that they still use cygwin for building their compiler tools.

Yes, AFAIK that is true, and is another discussion I'd like to have 

> And, as may have been noted, the mingw web page is really not wrong.
> MinGW support in cygwin *is* flaky and we *have* talked about
> deprecating it.

I don't know much about that, relative to others here and "over there". 
Since your involvement in cygwin (and this List) is continuous and daily 
and mine is perforce sporadic, I can never authoritatively contest anything 
you state regarding past statements and discussions. Nor do I see any need 

[note: OP wrote]
> >>From what I've seen, it looks like MinGW support in Cygwin GCC is
> >>up-to-date and better than ever before.  So, I have no idea what the
> >>MinGW web site is referring to.  Does anyone from Cygwin agree that
> >>MinGW support will be deprecated?

[I wrote]
> >Hopefully this can all get resolved peacefully and harmoniously.  The
> >one thing I hope is that the collective attitudes at minGW never get to the
> >point where people "over there" (some of whom are also "people over here")
> >have forgotten the debt of appreciation they owe to cygwin, for being the
> >historical predecessor and "host" that allowed them to come into existence,
> >if for nothing else.

> There is no "over there". 

Of course there is. If one refrains from placing inferred nuances into my 
words, all that my words meant (like the words of the OP) is that there is 
a minGW community, vaguely -- as you indicated, a core group of 
maintainers, whom I have much respect for -- and that community has its own 
Lists and sites (as cited by the OP). And maybe or maybe not (debatably) 
its own collective prevailing attitudes.

> The MinGW maintainers are a friendly bunch. I scan the MinGW lists for
> cygwin issues and a number of them read the cygwin list as well. 

As I believe I said?!?

> So, please don't invent any antipathy between our two groups.

Perhaps *you* individually saw my words as an attempt to do so, hopefully 
that wasn't a widespread impression. I think going back and looking at the 
msg of the OP is warrented if one is going to debate my intention any 
further after I have made this reply. There is IMO a clear probability that 
the OP's msg may be read by some people as evoking the sense that there's 
controversy or disharmony between cygwin and minGW.

My message was addressed to that possibility, not to fan any flames but to 
provide historical perspective to those who might be "catching up" -- as 
there are always many newcomers to any special-interest discussion in this 
large realm, be it "GNU" or "Apache" or "Mozilla" or whatever -- people who 
weren't involved from the early inception stages and may be lacking in 
knowledge of where things have come from and how they got here. I am a firm 
believer in knowing as much history as possible; I believe that when people 
know the past they can better attempt not to repeat the same mistakes over 
and over again, among other benefits. I implicitly invite correction from 
you or anyone if I mis-cite facts of a historical nature (as opposed to 
reportage of personal experience, which is in a sense incontestable) ; 
however I do not feel myself required by any sort of humility-virtue ethic 
to silently submit to significantly misinterpreted readings of my 
statements that infer meanings they were not intended to have.

> I have never seen anyone badmouth cygwin in the mingw mailing lists. 
> In my opinion MinGW is a sister project and should be treated as such. 

That's great. I have seen (newbie) posters to THIS List somewhat brusquely 
(but not outside the "cultural-style" of such Lists as this and the 
hundreds of others out there on the 'Net) told that minGW questions were OT 
and won't be answered here. Perhaps that has contributed to a subconcious 
impression *on my part* that cygwin folk were a little sick and tired of 
minGW if they weren't actively involved in it themselves. That's all.

> gcc -mno-cygwin isn't going anywhere.  I somtimes speculate that we will be
> deprecating it but since this switch is required to build some things in the
> 'winsup hierarchy' we really can't do that.
> I've also speculated that gcc -mno-cygwin should just run a mingw cross
> compiler but that is rather infeasible, too.  It means that if you are
> building the winsup hierarchy from scratch you have to somehow also build a
> completely separate compiler and linker.  There is no way that I even want
> to imagine the Makefile nightmare necessary to accomplish that.
> So, what is needed is someone to fix gcc, ld, and whatever to do the right
> thing.  Barring that, gcc -mno-cygwin will remain relatively stagnant.
> cgf

Thanks, and I hope that readers for whom my discussion herein of dialogue 
itself -- and 'feelings,' 'motives,' and 'attitudes' and so forth that 
accompanies it -- is "objectionable," will just have the self-possessed 
good sense to ignore my messages if they make them unmanageably 
uncomfortable, rather than knee-jerking in reaction. What I mean is, I've 
noticed that some people on technical Lists can't tell reasonable but 
difficult attempts at dialogue and reaching understanding across mutual 
comprehension barriers, from "flames" or 
"trolling" -- an unfortunate lack-of-wisdom handicap but one that belongs 
to the people it belongs to, not to 
me. I am not trying to make trouble, I simply find based on life-experience 
that it is valuable to pay some 
attention to dialogue and how it is carried out as an issue in itself,  
rather than just always react by killfiling 
people or responding with brusque criticisms and put-downs (which are the 
verbal moral equivalent of bombs 
dropped from aircraft). It is my observation that many Free (not Free 
Beer...) software communities are 
slowed down in the hurdles they can overcome because of handicaps in 
communication outside their group 
(between their group and others). If I have an agenda it might be said that 
it is to get people to see that there 
is room for improvement in dialogue skills itself and that this can yield 
great rewards. But I realize that many people cannot hear me and will just 
get pissed-off, in some cases, at the lengthy or non-technical, humanistic 
nature of what I am trying to express.

     Soren Andersen

Unsubscribe info:
Bug reporting:

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