Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla1.2 on cygwin

[Aaron Bentley]

Tom Lord wrote:

>    > From: Aaron Bentley <address@hidden>
>
>    > There are several approaches to Windows compatibility at the moment:
>
>    > - Lode Leroy's cygwin,
>    > - Johannes Berg's native Win32,
>    > - Compiling on Windows Services for Unix. 
>
>    > It's a question of what aproach is optimal.  
>
> Is it?  It seems to me that they involve different and unordered
> trade-offs.   
I meant "the question is whether Leroy's approach is worth maintaining, 
not whether Windows compatibility is worth maintaining."

The tradeoffs are
Leroy: requires Cygwin.
Berg: requires NTFS
SFU: requires SFU & NTFS
(All require Windows NT or descendant)

> ("It seems to me" doesn't count for much at all in this
> context since it isn't much of an exaggeration to say, of my knowledge
> of Windows, "Didn't that evolve out of DOS?").
>  
Well, Windows NT and descendants aren't directly derived from DOS.

> Won't it, especially as libtla comes on line, make sense to support
> all three if that's practical?
>  
Short term, yes.  Long term, I think it would be nice to combine Leroy's 
and Berg's work.  Presumably, the result would require neither Cygwin 
nor NTFS.   It might even work on the Windows 9x family. 

> The question from my perspective, is really the impact on the code of
> any particular approach.   If it's clean and isolated or clean and
> minor -- then sure, let's add it.
>  
I agree.  It's great to see the strides that have been made in porting 
Arch to Windows.  Ultimately, I think we do want a single Windows port.  
Having 3 versions with essentially the same features will only lead to 
user confusion.  But I don't think we need to pick one right away and 
toss the others.

Aaron