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

[Rob Landley]

On Sunday 25 April 2010 02:48:11 Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
> 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.

I don't intentionally want to make things hard for you, but:

A) I'm not sure non-intrustive Windows support for native win32 is a realistic 
goal.  It's the kind of thing that expands and intrudes.  (Or is that embraces 
and extends?)

B) Cygwin is essentially the opposite of Wine, providing an open source posix-
is environment for Windows.  They do a lot of stuff in order to provide this 
environment, and asking BusyBox to internally replicate what Cygwin already 
does seems somewhat counterproductive for us.  (Especially if what's 
attracting you to busybox is that it's simple and lightweight.)

C) Targeting busybox to mingw isn't the lightest thing _for_busybox_.  We 
targeted posix APIs.  Some of the reasons we're lightweight is because we do 
one thing and do it well, and use low level interfaces directly rather than 
unnecessary abstraction layers.  The "do this for this target, and do that for 
that target, add layers of abstraction to disguise the difference" _is_ the GNU 
project's approach.  That's what they do.  That's what we _don't_ do.

Rob
-- 
Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds