Re: On Cygwin package naming and a setup.exe bug

[Warren Young <warren at etr-usa dot com>]

Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
> 
> However I must admit that, having read the original posting again, it does
> not positively says what is in the binary PRC-tools cygwin package; we just
> understand the term differently it seems.

I use PRC-Tools regularly, so let me try to add some light to this
heated discussion.  :)

I mainly use the Linux version of PRC-Tools, but the last time I used
the Windows version, it assumed that it was being installed into a
working Cygwin environment.  I'm sure this hasn't changed -- the
PRC-Tools people are only trying to change their installation
mechanism.  Since they assume a working Cygwin environment, setup.exe
should exist on users' systems, so trying to make it flexible enough to
go and fetch PRC-Tools is a reasonable thing to attempt.

The binary tools are built as patched versions of the native ones, and
they do depend on cygwin1.dll, so there is a GPL issue here, but the
PRC-Tools project is not re-distributing anything from Cygwin itself. 
It only uses Cygwin code in the distributed binaries.  

There should be no file conflicts, because the PRC-Tools are built with
entirely different prefixes.  It's a cross-compiler living on the same
system as the native compiler that built it.
-- 
= Warren -- ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/