On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Soegtrop, Michael <michael.soegt...@intel.com> wrote: > Dear Hans-Bernhard, > >> You're doing this via Cygwin, i.e. on a Windows machine, where MinGW is a >> _native_ toolchain. That begs the question: why are you doing a cross build >> in >> the first place? > > I simply couldn't find another way to build 50 configure / make style > libraries and tools on Windows. If there is a method I haven't heard of, > please let me know. MSYS and MSYS2 couldn't build a single of these libraries > or tools without huge patches while doing the same on cygwin used to work out > of the box.
Sorry to go a little off-topic, can you give me a list of some of these libraries and tools that can be built for a mingw-w64 host but which don't build on MSYS2 without huge patches? The stuff you are describing is the raison d'être for MSYS2 (and MSYS but I don't care about MSYS). Feel free to take this off-list. > >> So you shouldn't even be getting to any place where the output of a cross- >> target (i.e. MinGW) executable is run on the build host, and its output piped >> into a build platform (i.e. Cygwin) tool. > > I think it is quite common to build MinGW tools on cygwin and then run these > MinGW tools from cygwin, e.g. for regression testing and to process their > output in cygwin e.g. to get a test verdict. > >> That means what you're trying to argue here is that an evident short-coming >> of >> some build setups should be fixed by breaking Cygwin pipes' mode of operation >> for everyone. Sorry, but I don't see that happening. > > I think that arguing that one should not run MinGW programs from cygwin > because they are entirely different operating systems and that a build system > which does this has inherent short-comings is somehow neglecting reality. Why > shouldn’t one do this is the only problem are CRs? > > I also didn't ask to mess up Cygwin's pipe system. All I ask for is that > tools which are documented as text processing tools like sed have an > environment option to be MinGW friendly. I think people who are using sed for > binary files should use the -b option - if only to document that they are > doing this intentionally. > >> > I don't see another way than having sed strip away the CRs. It doesn't >> > make sense to build programs intended to be run under plain Windows >> > such that they do not produce CRs. >> >> I believe it makes much more sense than you think. Hardly any Windows tool >> worth using actually _needs_ those CRs in the first place. > > That is true - just, as I said many times, all these tools are out of my > control and I do not want to tell people to open streams used for text output > with "wb" just to get around pure Windows artefacts. Many people on this list > said that the maintainers of such SW have every right to reject such change > requests and I agree. Please think about what you are asking me here to do: > filing 200 fairly useless change requests against 50 Linux centric tool and > libraries. Sorry, I am not going to do this. I rather beg here to be MinGW > friendly. > > Best regards, > > Michael > > Intel Deutschland GmbH > Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany > Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de > Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter > Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau > Registered Office: Munich > Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928 -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
