Re: next release of Lout is approaching (mingw vs cygwin)

[Valeriy E. Ushakov]

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 21:01:27 +0800, KHMan wrote:

> >I'd prefer a "native" win32 port compiled with whatever is the
> >"native" version of gcc for windows, lcc-win32, or with the free
> >variety of Visual Studio (Express, or whatever microsoft's fancy
> >marketing name for it is).  I don't see a need to tie lout for windows
> >to cygwin.
> 
> But from my position, the our problem is this: Small FLOSS 
> projects like Lout have very little manpower resources. I make my 
> decisions based on very limited availability of manpower for small 
> projects like Lout. Transitioning to Cygwin is manpower-efficient.
[...]
> So unless someone seriously wants to take over the MinGW port,
> transitioning to Cygwin is best for everyone; I no longer need to
> make those binary releases,

If by "transitioning to cygwin" you mean no longer providing binary
release for win32, then I don't see what's the point of this
discussion.  You don't need to "transition" anywhere to stop providing
binary releases.  And iirc Lout worked out of the box with cygwin for
a long time (modulo CRLF problems that are supposed to be fixed now as
well), so I really don't understand what and why are you going to
"transition" to.  You are already there. :)


> Lout is primarily a source release only, and Lout is currently
> more or less in maintenance mode. I would rather use my time for 
> better purposes than maintain a legacy binary release. Someone who 
> releases a binary release has to answer for it (or not, but that 
> wouldn't be nice) and I don't see myself maintaining MinGW 
> binaries forever.

What kind of maintenance do you envision for it?


SY, Uwe
-- 
address@hidden                       |       Zu Grunde kommen
http://snark.ptc.spbu.ru/~uwe/          |       Ist zu Grunde gehen