[darcs-users] _real_ cygwin build?

Tuomo Valkonen tuomov at iki.fi
Tue Mar 3 00:46:51 UTC 2009

On 2009-03-03, Trent W. Buck <trentbuck at gmail.com> wrote:
> Call me Mr. Silly, but why is a Cygwin version of Darcs preferable to a
> native binary?  Last time I looked at Windows (which was, admittedly,
> about six years ago) cygwin was a bloated, messy pile of confusing and
> unweildy junk -- and that if you could get a utility (e.g. bash or grep)
> as a stand-alone .exe, it was *much* easier to deploy.

It's a big mess that _still_ fails to provide basic multi-byte
encoding/locale support. But I plan to use it as my LaTeX and 
code "IDE" (Ion+joe[*]+etc.), and would prefer darcs to work 
well with it, rather than with Windows itself. So let Cygwin 
(or UWin or whatever) do all the path mangling etc., and give 
me a version of darcs that thinks its running under *nix,
to work well with those tools.

[*] joe-editor.sf.net. 

In 1995, Linux was almost a bicycle; an alternative way of live to the
Windows petrol beasts that had to be taken to the dealer for service.
By 2008, Linux has bloated into a gas-guzzler, and local vendors and
artisans have had to yield to "all under one roof" big box hypermarkets.

More information about the darcs-users mailing list