[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Name for new port WAS: new port



On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 05:19:43PM -0400, JAMES M MASTROS wrote:
> 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?

More so. Apps from mingw-i386 should run under cygwin-i386 without
recompiling, although quite a lot of them would be considerably more
work to port to that 'arch'.

I would suggest that it is impractical and unhelpful to port to win32,
though. winnt would be a better target, it has a filesystem which is
not rooted in the dark ages and actually supports permissions and
supports a decent subset of POSIX libc stuff. How many applications
would work sanely and securely without UNIX-like permissions (as well
as anything else win9x might lack that I haven't thought of).

-- 
Andrew Suffield <asuffield@users.sourceforge.net>
Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK

Attachment: pgpABuiEMdDUx.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: