Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Enrico> cygwin-without-cygwin? what's that? ;-)
Isn't the point of this thread to support compiling with cygwin
-mnocygwin and (perhaps separately, I am not sure anymore) to have a
binary that can either be cygwin-based or not depending on the phase
of the moon? It may be that I missed the point, but I think we should
keep things simple.
The interesting part, of course, is proper support for real cygwin,
which you address in your other message.
Just my two cents:
I agree with Jean-Marc that we should keep things simple. We don't have
to support each and every conceivable configuration. If we manage to
provide the Windows world with a working LyX - no matter how - our job
is done! I also don't understand why a user may want to change path
conventions at run-time (is there anybody out there who actually
understands the implications?)
This said, I am happy with any patches that fix cygwin problems.
However, we should make sure that MinGW and MikTeX continue to work
without special hacks.
Michael
