From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id pBEJfkJA013294 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:41:46 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AusCAHL76E5RZ90xlGdsb2JhbABEhQmlCIEcIgEBAQEJCwkJFAMigXIBAQEEIxE8CRACAQgOCgICBiACAgIwFRACBAENDYd0pU2RX4EviUIzYwSUdJIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,354,1320620400"; d="scan'208";a="123386866" Received: from mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.49]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2011 20:41:41 +0100 Received: from aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20111214194139.MSFV19823.mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:41:39 +0000 Received: from romulus.metastack.com ([81.102.132.77]) by aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.3.00.04.00 201-2196-133-20080908) with ESMTP id <20111214194139.PZIX13318.aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@romulus.metastack.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:41:39 +0000 Received: from remus.metastack.local ([172.16.0.1]) by romulus.metastack.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id pBEJfZDG013826 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:41:35 GMT Received: from Remus.metastack.local ([fe80::547c:3c42:e1da:eda2]) by Remus.metastack.local ([fe80::547c:3c42:e1da:eda2%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:41:35 +0000 From: David Allsopp To: Gerd Stolpmann , Aleksey Nogin CC: "caml-list@inria.fr" Thread-Topic: [Caml-list] Some comments on recent discussions Thread-Index: AQHMtCs09pDhjNWlt0yP5IxxGNCe6pXZTwUAgAAWjACAABJpgIAACGSAgAARegCAAVH3AIAAcmKAgABM3ICAAAJ1AIAAIp+w Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:41:33 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4EDE33A0.6070004@gmail.com> <1323760512.9833.9.camel@samsung> <4EE711FB.5020602@frisch.fr> <4EE83C26.7090108@frisch.fr> <1323867161.7750.27.camel@samsung> <4EE8DC93.1000806@metaprl.org> <1323884194.7750.58.camel@samsung> In-Reply-To: <1323884194.7750.58.camel@samsung> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [212.183.128.81] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Organization: MetaStack Solutions Ltd. X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.65 on 81.102.132.77 X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=JvdXmxIgLJv2/GthKqHpGJEEHukvLcvELVXUanXFreg= c=1 sm=0 a=SxI_7mb01KcA:10 a=O9R-r1y_7l0A:10 a=cTs9vV391PwA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=FP58Ms26AAAA:8 a=H_5f6Qhc4c02QBVNBIEA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by walapai.inria.fr id pBEJfkJA013294 Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Some comments on recent discussions Gerd Stolpmann wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 14.12.2011, 09:27 -0800 schrieb Aleksey Nogin: > > On 14.12.2011 04:52, Gerd Stolpmann wrote: > > > > > I don't think you will be able to convince everybody - at this point > > > the issue becomes political in some sense: Do we want to give up our > > > Unix habits just to support an OS we (often enough) do not like, and > > > would only cover to get more love from the world? > > > > > > There could be an alternative: The "busybox approach". We could > > > develop a toolkit that covers all the Unix commands we need for the > > > existing build scripts. It would include easy things like cp, mv > > > etc., but also a classic "make" (medium difficulty, note that it > > > could reuse the godi_make code), and especially a POSIX shell. The > > > latter is a bit of work, but not too much. I'd guess the overall > > > effort takes not more than > > > 1-2 weeks if done by somebody how knows the semantics of the tools > > > very well. > > > > > > There are a number of advantages over Cygwin: > > > - No danger of running into licensing problems > > > - The Unix compatibility is only maintained for commands, but not on > > > the system call level (eaiser to use, less surprises, fewer > > > deps,...) > > > - It would only be a small download, and easy to integrate into > > > installers > > > > Note that to a degree, OMake already provides the ability to do > > Unix-style things under Windows. > > I know, and this makes me quite optimistic that it is not that hard to > develop standalone executables for the frequently used Unix utilities. Any particular reason why the GnuWin32 project doesn't already fulfil this requirement (http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/)? David