From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel,gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Reconsideration of MinGW work Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:13:37 +0000 Message-ID: <87hbo7lwsu.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <87fx3tjt3r.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1269303308 31558 80.91.229.12 (23 Mar 2010 00:15:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:15:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org, guile-devel@gnu.org To: Peter Brett Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 23 01:15:04 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ntrlu-00051B-A2 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:15:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43279 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ntrlt-0004Ky-Mu for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:15:01 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ntrkt-00042y-A9 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:13:59 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50118 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ntrkr-00042H-4F for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:13:58 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ntrko-0001Ur-Hm for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:13:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mail3.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.33]:43614) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ntrko-0001Ug-8l; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:13:54 -0400 Original-Received: from arudy (host86-182-154-126.range86-182.btcentralplus.com [86.182.154.126]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BECA91F661A; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:13:53 +0000 (GMT) Original-Received: from arudy (arudy [127.0.0.1]) by arudy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EB5938026; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:13:37 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: (Peter Brett's message of "Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:10:50 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:10072 gmane.lisp.guile.user:7717 Archived-At: Peter Brett writes: > Neil Jerram writes: > >> I've been making gradual progress on MinGW cross building, but I've >> reached a point where I'm no longer sure that this is worthwhile. This >> email explains why, and invites comments from anyone interested in this >> - especially from anyone who is really trying to use Guile on Windows. > > We get people coming to the gEDA user mailing list on a regular basis > saying, "Where can I find a version of gEDA for Windows?" and the > Windows builds we've put out have been generally well-received. Since > Guile is one of our core dependencies, lack of Windows support in Guile > would mean that we wouldn't be able to provide a Windows build at all > (we already had massive problems at the start of the Guile 1.8.x series > with GMP portability, or lack thereof, and this meant that it took > almost three years after 1.8 became the supported stable release for us > to be able to stop supporting 1.6). Hi Peter, I'm sorry, I didn't mean my email to suggest dropping Windows support. It was more about what more (if anything) is needed for 1.8 releases, and how to handle Windows support in future, and how those points relate to a line of work that I've been spending time on recently. Where are you getting your MinGW guile from at the moment? Is it that MinGW SF page that I mentioned, or somewhere else? > Cygwin isn't an option, unfortunately; we think it's totally > reasonable for users to want to use the native windowing system, not to > mention the fact that Cygwin is *dog slow*. OK, understood. I'd like to understand more about what makes Cygwin slow, though, in order to see why a MinGW Guile wouldn't end up being equally slow. But in the interim I'm happy to accept that MinGW is needed. Regards, Neil