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

Re: Debian GNU/Win32



I believe the resistance was mostly for the idea of doing
a totally native Win32 type adaptation of the code, with 
appropriate/required #ifdefs in the code, and most likely
NOT using cygwin.  I do not recall exactly, but I believe
the discussion was aimed mostly at Win32, not necessarily
cygwin....


On 08 Nov 2001 11:26:52 -0600, Paul Baker wrote:

>On Thu, 2001-11-08 at 08:21, Mark Paulus wrote:
>> I have opened up a project on sourceforge under the 
>> heading of debian-cygwin.  It's a partial win32 project, and
>> a partial un*x project, as my underlying premise was to use
>> the debian package management system and tools to help
>> enhance the cygwin environment.  As such, it would rely on
>> the cygwin environment for it's support, and much of it's 
>> "un*xness".  There was a discussion on debian-devel about
>> this, and it received much flak, but I was thinking that I would
>> go ahead with it anyway.  Simply because I use cygwin, and
>> I know there are others who do, and while Window's isn't
>> free and all that jazz, I believe many others can and will
>> benefit from a debian approach to package management for
>> cygwin.
>
>How else would you do a *nix like system on win32 other than cygwin? I
>just joined this list, but I have to say I'm surprised you received
>resistance.
>
>> I have also attempted to set up the beginnings of a debian 
>> package archive on sourceforge, but once again, I need to do
>> some research on the fundamentals of setting up a package 
>> archive, and that takes time to do research (which is in short
>> supply right now....)
>
>Sounds like a good start. I would love to help too, but my free time is
>also in rather short supply :-(
>
>-- 
>=======================================================================
>Paul J. Baker                                Internet Systems Developer
>pbaker@where2getit.com                                  Where2GetIt.com
>=======================================================================
>





Reply to: