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

[Robert Collins]

On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 17:33, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> 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)

Cygwin doesn't require NT. It may for Leroy's code, but cygwin itself
doesn't, and thus Leroy's code -should- be malleable to working on
win9x. And before anyone suggests that that doesn't matter - I know
developers working on coprorate platforms that are stuck on 9x
platforms.

> 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.

Don't be confused, they are three different ports. The SFU work is /not/
a windows platform.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part