> P.S. Cygwin is definitely one of the options, but RedHat/Cygnus's plans are not very
>
> clear at this point and few months ago there were even some rumors about plans for
> 'more restrictive licence' for cygwin - and anyway, cygwin wouldn't be of any help
> to Mac/BeOS/VAX/mainframe people.
We have been very lucky to have cgywin to allow us to run on NT with
very few changes. My guess is that we would basically need to re-invent
cgywin on those platforms because we use most/all of the modules.
I guess that is what makes it sound really hard. If Cygnus has problems
doing Win95 or Mac, it would be very hard for us, no?
If we were just passing around bytes or doing network stuff like Apache
or Perl, we would be OK. It is the shared memory and locking stuff that
would really give us trouble. Cgywin gave us that.
We do have _very_ clearly modular code, so someone could easily see
exactly where we do each of these things. Probably the bigest hurdle is
that none of the developers have any interest in these platforms.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
