Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > On 25/01/2010 04:57, Albrecht Schlosser wrote: >> Point taken. But unfortunately the FLTK community decided it the >> other way with a majority of 74% (this must have been in or before >> 2003): >> >> http://www.fltk.org/poll.php?r1 >> >> Thus this is not likely to be changed. Sorry. > > Since when are matters such as this decided by opinion polls? I bet > most of the voters didn't use Cygwin or even know what it is. Did you > have a poll to decide how FLTK should be built on Linux? Didn't think > so. I am NOT impressed.
Meh. Unlike linux, there is a significant portion of the cygwin user base that treats cygwin simply as a "build environment" -- but use a compiler for native win32 $hosts. I don't much like it, but that's reality. (...why did Cygnus fund the early development, in the first place? To have a windows-hosted build environment for xxx-target compilers: in this case, xxx = native-win32) So, the FLTK development and user community thinks of Cygwin that way, by a 3-to-1 majority. Maybe we ought to try to convince them to treat cygwin as a full-class platform, rather than as an afterthought to native win32 support? I suspect a better approach to that end is more honey, less vinegar. I know, I know -- that's pretty rich, coming from me. But...there it is. > Like any other platform, the only people that should have a say in any > package's behaviour on Cygwin are the Cygwin managers and maintainers. > We have made Cygwin a *NIX/X11 platform, and we have decided that gcc > will not support -mno-cygwin (which was broken anyway). *That* is the > ONLY opinion that should matter in this discussion. Well, by removing -mno-cygwin, we've more or less assured that this will happen eventually. People are going to get tired of being stuck with 'gcc-3 -mno-cygwin' eventually, and are going to want to use i686-mingw32-gcc(4) at some point. Then, they'll have to switch over to an actual cross-compile configury for their cygwin-hosted native builds. But that'll take a while. > Unfortunately this attitude is by no means limited to FLTK, and any > frustration with this topic is based more on the frequency of this sort > of thinking than with FLTK in particular. Yep, but...that's the nature of (our) beast. -- Chuck -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
