Re: Quantifying the time overhead of Cygwin make

On 10/06/14 12:47, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 01:22:16PM +0300, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> > You mean cmd.exe + coreutils should be enough?
>
> Ideally yes, plus some POSIX shell.

and i want a pony.

there's a long list of Cygwin packages that are currently needed, and
likely Cygwin is the most convenient way to install all this stuff:

setup-x86.exe -P autoconf -P automake -P bison -P cabextract -P doxygen
-P flex -P gcc-g++ -P git -P gnupg -P gperf -P libxml2-devel -P
libpng12-devel -P make -P mintty -P openssh -P openssl -P patch -P perl
-P perl_vendor -P pkg-config -P python -P readline -P rsync -P unzip -P
vim -P wget -P zip

https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Windows_Build_Dependencies

well a few of those look spurious, e.g. gcc-g++ is no longer needed, and
i wonder why gnupg or openssh or rsync are on the list...

> > Probably bash or some other POSIX shell too, surely?
>
> Yeah. Note that e.g. busybox already includes the ash shell.
>
> > Is there a non-Cygwin such that actually would support all the shell
> > constructs we use? Is its complexity that much less than Cygwin's?
>
> busybox, msys, there are quite a few standalone bash ports.

it's possible that Msys has a lot of the things we need, but perhaps not
things like cabextract, doxygen, gperf, perl, python.