Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/04/24/19:33:38
On 22 Apr 2001, at 10:36, the Illustrious Earnie Boyd wrote:
> Paul Garceau wrote:
> > I would agree with Chris...not to "deprecate", as Earnie
> > states, but
> > to discourage the use of -mno-cygwin for anyone not familiar enough
> > with the differences between using -mno-cygwin vs not using -mno-
> > cygwin.
> > There has been a *ell of a lot of work put in to getting
> > -mno-cygwin
> > to work over the years. I don't believe that effort should be wasted
> > by eliminating (or "deprecating", as Earnie puts it) the -mno-cygwin
> > switch.
Deprecating is far better than deleting for as long as the switch
remains well documented.
At least by deprecating -mno-cygwin, we would be encouraging those
folks who wanted to use the -mno-cygwin switch to instead use Mingw,
thereby removing a great deal of the support requirements for -mno-
cygwin for the current maintainer of that switch. This is always a
good thing...less time spent on maintaining -mno-cygwin more time spent
on doing what they need and want to do.
The flipside of this, of course, is that there would be an increase in
the amount of questions about using the -mno-cygwin switch...of course,
since Mingw and Cygwin are in fact two different tool sets...the Mingw
folks can encourage people to not ask questions about Cygwin under the
mingw mailing list. Problem solved...
-mno-cygwin continues to exist within Cygwin
Mingw gets a boost to its user base...
Seems like a win-win situation to me...What do you think, Earnie?
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
- Raw text -