On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:33:58 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 6:23:21 PM UTC+2, Bill Hart wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 17:15:14 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >>> >>> Is there any reason to assume that porting using MSYS2 is easier than >>> porting using Cygwin? Because the latter is already hard enough. >>> >> >> Cygwin is personally of no use to me (native applications like Julia >> can't work with it). I don't think I've ever downloaded a Sage Cygwin >> binary. For one, it's bloated and too slow. >> >> Cygwin in not considered a native environment by serious Windows >> developers. It's a Linux on Windows, nothing more. It doesn't even try to >> play nice with native applications or the Windows ABI. >> >> The main reason for the existence of the MSYS2 project in their own words >> is "better interoperability with native Windows software". >> >> You skipped the "based on modern Cygwin (POSIX compatibility layer) and > MinGW-w64" part, that's not very fair :p >
I really meant, the main reason given that Cygwin already exists. I think that the posix compatibility layer and MinGW-w64 are both features, but don't explain why it exists in the presence of other such projects. Bill. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
