Re: Name for new port WAS: new port
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Sux0r Dani San wrote:
> Well, there is the fact that is possible in the future to exist a cygwin
> devel environment for the upcoming Ms Windows for IA64. Also, there
> exists the possibility of cygwin being ported to any of the other
> platforms NT exists on (ppc, mips, alpha...), so Any reference to Intel,
> or 32 bits architecture would be incorrect.
Sorry, but that's a negitive on the whole enchelada.
There exists the possibilty for the Linux kernel to be ported to any
number of hardware archs. They still each have a sepperate port name.
The correct archive name, imho, is win32-i386, just like hurd-i386.
(win32-ia32 is probably more correct, but i386 has parity). If at some
point we have a win32 on ia64 port (and it probably will still be win32;
all the text in MSDN suggests so), it'll be a different port, win32-ia64.
As for the name, Debian GNU/MS Windows is probably the most correct.
(BTW, there shouldn't be any problem with using the trandmarked names
Microsoft, Windows, and win32, so long as they are properly acknowlaged;
we're well within fair use here.)
The key issue is binary-compatablity. win32-i386, win32-alpha, and
win32-ia64 are different ports. cygwin-i386 vs. whateverelsewin-i386 have
binary-compatablity as much as libc5 & glibc do, don't they?
-=- James Mastros
--
All trademarks are the property of their owners. Until the revolution
comes. The revolution will not be televised. It will be webcast.
Reply to: