Re: Glibc for win32
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 08:38:55PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:09:29PM +0100, Carlos Sousa wrote:
> >On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:34:07 +0200 Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> >> http://line.sourceforge.net/
> >Sorry to butt in, I'm just a lurker here, but isn't LINE a dead project?
> >Doesn't seem to have any activity since mid-2001...
> >On the other hand, bringing a LINE fork under debian-win32 might be the
> >safest thing to do, in that scenario.
> AFAIK, it's a dead project and it uses cygwin at its core. Wasn't that
> what you were trying to avoid?
I have no problem using cygwin derived code per se.
But LINE uses cygwin in an original way.
My point is: with LINE, Debian-i386 can be used as is. No porting
required. (LINE already runs actual Linux programs.)
With traditional cygwin, all Debian has to be recompiled and probably
Glibc needs to be ported to ease that recompile.
It is anybodys shot which way is the easiest, but I believe LINE is.
(Since LINE already can run complex Linux applications.)
Of course, none of this matters until somebody digs in, one approach
or another. I am all talk and nothing else at this stage. If you decide
to go for either approach, more power to you.
It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it
is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It
isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
-- Oxford University Press, Edpress News