[PATCH 06/39] win32: add missing system headers

Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy pclouds at gmail.com
Sun Apr 25 07:48:11 UTC 2010


On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
> On Monday 19 April 2010 00:52:57 Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
>> >> > Surely this is a defect in your build environment?  These are standard
>> >> > system headers.  Your C library is defective.
>> >>
>> >> Welcome to Windows.
>> >
>> > How is a clearly defective build environment busybox's problem?  If mingw
>> > doesn't work, either fix it or try cygwin.  Both as open source build
>> > environments, and for all I know there's more.  (I don't do windows, but
>> > wasn't djgpp a build environment at one point?)
>>
>> Cygwin would work. But then I would need to carry cygwin1.dll with me.
>
> Statically link then.

For some technical reasons, it can't be statically linked. From top of
my mind, I could misremember though.

>> And it sometimes conflicts with other POSIX emulation. Windows is not
>> POSIX.
>
> A) Then why care about a program that implements the posix command line with
> common Linux extensions?   (Which is the point of busybox.)

Because there are posix guys forced to use Windows?

>> > If somebody came to the busybox list and went "I want to build against
>> > newlib+libgloss, but my build environment hasn't got these headers, I
>> > need you to add them to the busybox source for me", there's no way we'd
>> > do that.  Your position is that Windows is different?  Special?
>>
>> Windows is different (call it special if you want). Not a good thing
>> though. I'd never work on Windows if I had a choice.
>
> So why do you expect us to?
>
> I told a previous boss I'd rather flip burgers than write code for Windows.
>
> If you could make your changes completely non-intrusive so the non-Windows
> people neither had to look at them nor care about them, that would be one
> thing.  But it sounds like the changes you're proposing CAN'T be done that
> way, they're intrustive to busybox and the rest of the developers will be
> forced to know about them and not break them.

I try to be as low intrusive as I can. Things that need changes in
current busybox code (except shells) are usually for Windows drive
notation, line ending... Not complex things that require deep Windows
knowledge.

It's open source, you don't have to care about this port. Go make your
changes. If it breaks Windows port, someone who uses it should step up
and fix it. If nobody cares of it anymore, get rid of it. I understand
you don't want to mess up busybox source code with this. If you say
no, I will keep this port out of tree.
-- 
Duy


More information about the busybox mailing list