coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Garrett Serack <garretts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would agree. I'd *rather* not go down the route of making a compatibility layer for stuff, the better approach is to fix the code to do what's right on Windows, and deal with what comes back.

Now, that being said, there are going to be times when we'll need to make a (thin-as-possible) layer to achieve our goals.

G

________________________________
From: coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Adam Baxter [voltagex@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:35 AM
To: madewokherd@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] I think we'll want to fork gnulib

I think that depends on how far we're willing to go to avoid modifications to the original source.
If we tried to provide grep with the failure code it expects, I think
that would bring us into compatibility layer territory. Instead, we
should just accept that that's how windows works and modify grep to
account for it.

Sounds reasonable, but probably best to defer to Garrett and other people who know more than me - do we focus on shallow forking the libraries, the applications or take it on a case by case basis? How should the CoApp project deal with the concepts of making the software work within the Windows ecosystem, rather than going down the Cygwin route of bringing Unixisms to Windows? (maybe that discussion belongs in a new thread?)


--Sfsm