[ITP] mingw-libjpeg, mingw-libpng, mingw-openssl

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[ITP] mingw-libjpeg, mingw-libpng, mingw-openssl

Peter Quiring-2
Okay,

I've created some packages for Cygwin under the mingw category.  They
are mingw versions of libjpeg, libpng, and openssl.  The conventions I
used are slightly different from cygwin standards but were neccessary to
compile under the mingw system.  The source includes two scripts, one to
compile and another to package the binary bz2 file.  I hope this would
be accepted since I've put a lot of work into this.  You can view the
packages at http://digiforce.sf.net/cygwin (all setup.hint files are
there too).
Please ignore the mingw-zlib package there, it's just a modified copy of
the one already distributed at cygwin.com.
These packages are some standard packages I need while programming with
mingw and I don't intend on adding anything else at the moment.

One note about my packages is that only static libs are in the binary
packages since that's the idea behind mingw.

Thanks for considering my packages, and thanks for cygwin in general -
an essential tool for multi-platform developers.

Peter Quiring

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ITP] mingw-libjpeg, mingw-libpng, mingw-openssl

Charles Wilson-2
Peter Quiring wrote:
> I've created some packages for Cygwin under the mingw category.  They
> are mingw versions of libjpeg, libpng,

Sorry, but I have to veto these (but see good news, below)

  and openssl.

I'll leave Corinna to comment on this one.

  The conventions I
> used are slightly different from cygwin standards but were neccessary to
> compile under the mingw system.

See, that's the problem: cygwin doesn't distribute "mingw" packages, in
the sense of "packages that were created using the 'mingw system': mingw
compiler and framework".  mingw-zlib and mingw-bzip2 are perhaps poor
names, but they refer to *cygwin* generated packages that were simply
compiled so that they do not use cygwin1.dll.

Now, after looking at your libpng package, I see that you're actually
using *cygwin's* gcc with a -mno-cygwin flag -- which is fine.  But it's
not, really, the "mingw system".  The "mingw system" is a different
animal, over at http://mingw.sourceforge.net/.

There's really no reason for cygwin to distribute *any* non-cygwin apps
or libs -- the current exceptions are: setup.exe (which obviously can't
require cygwin) and the libraries needed to build setup.exe (mingw-zlib,
mingw-bzip2), and one or two other apps like strace.exe and cygcheck.exe
where it should be obvious why they can't depend on cygwin1.dll.

Finally, even if cygwin *should* distribute non-cygwin libraries, they'd
still have to follow the cygwin packaging standard (which your source
tarballs do not).  Plus, it really makes *no* sense for different
versions of the same library to be maintained by different people.  *IF*
the community thinks that it would be a good idea for cygwin to
distribute non-cygwin versions of libpng and libjpeg, then the
maintainer of the cygwin versions of those libs should do it.

That'd be me.

Or...it _could_ be you -- 'cause I'd be willing if the circumstances
were right to relinquish maintainership of these packages.  However, I
think it'd make most people nervous if I handed over maintainership of
core graphics libraries for the cygwin platform to a relative newcomer
(this was your first post to any cygwin list, right? I see you've been
involved with http://www.winehq.com, but not here.)

  The source includes two scripts, one to

> compile and another to package the binary bz2 file.  I hope this would
> be accepted since I've put a lot of work into this.  You can view the
> packages at http://digiforce.sf.net/cygwin (all setup.hint files are
> there too).
> Please ignore the mingw-zlib package there, it's just a modified copy of
> the one already distributed at cygwin.com.
> These packages are some standard packages I need while programming with
> mingw and I don't intend on adding anything else at the moment.
>
> One note about my packages is that only static libs are in the binary
> packages since that's the idea behind mingw.

Err, nope.  libtool-1.5-mingwPORT includes a shared lib, libltdl-3.dll.
There's nothing about mingw that requires static libraries (or else why
did those poor schlebs work so hard to get support for building shared
libraries (of third-party, non-libtool code) on mingw added to libtool
in the first place?

> Thanks for considering my packages, and thanks for cygwin in general -
> an essential tool for multi-platform developers.

Yes, yes it is.

So, here's the good news: if others think that it'd be a good idea to
include no-cygwin versions of libpng and libjpeg, I could be persuaded
to ITP the following myself, after knocking them into a little better shape:

http://cygutils.fruitbat.org/testing/mingw-old/mingw-libpng
http://cygutils.fruitbat.org/testing/mingw-old/mingw-jpeg

I *might* fix 'em up and put 'em in a more prominent area of the
cygutils website with a setup.ini even if the community doesn't think
they should be included in the core distro.

--
Chuck

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ITP] mingw-libjpeg, mingw-libpng, mingw-openssl

Corinna Vinschen-2
On Feb  8 01:51, Charles Wilson wrote:

> Peter Quiring wrote:
> >I've created some packages for Cygwin under the mingw category.  They
> >are mingw versions of libjpeg, libpng,
>
> Sorry, but I have to veto these (but see good news, below)
>
>  and openssl.
>
> I'll leave Corinna to comment on this one.
>
>  The conventions I
> >used are slightly different from cygwin standards but were neccessary to
> >compile under the mingw system.
>
> See, that's the problem: cygwin doesn't distribute "mingw" packages, in
> the sense of "packages that were created using the 'mingw system': mingw
> compiler and framework".  mingw-zlib and mingw-bzip2 are perhaps poor
> names, but they refer to *cygwin* generated packages that were simply
> compiled so that they do not use cygwin1.dll.
>
> Now, after looking at your libpng package, I see that you're actually
> using *cygwin's* gcc with a -mno-cygwin flag -- which is fine.  But it's
> not, really, the "mingw system".  The "mingw system" is a different
> animal, over at http://mingw.sourceforge.net/.
>
> There's really no reason for cygwin to distribute *any* non-cygwin apps
> or libs -- the current exceptions are: setup.exe (which obviously can't
> require cygwin) and the libraries needed to build setup.exe (mingw-zlib,
> mingw-bzip2), and one or two other apps like strace.exe and cygcheck.exe
> where it should be obvious why they can't depend on cygwin1.dll.

Charles said it all.  Thanks for the offer, but MingW packages really don't
belong in the Cygwin distro, but in the MingW distro.


Corinna

--
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ITP] mingw-libjpeg, mingw-libpng, mingw-openssl

Charles Wilson-2
In reply to this post by Charles Wilson-2
Charles Wilson wrote:
> Peter Quiring wrote:
>> I've created some packages for Cygwin under the mingw category.  They
>> are mingw versions of libjpeg, libpng,
>
> Sorry, but I have to veto these (but see good news, below)

Just to clarify: "veto" is too strong a word for me to use, since my
name isn't cgf or Corinna.  Rather, I "recommend strongly against"
accepting Peter's proposed versions of these packages into the cygwin
distro.

However, it appears that Corinna agrees -- and she CAN use the word
"veto".  Also, I interpret her message in this thread to mean that she
is also against incorporating *any* mingw-foo package other than those
strictly needed for cygwin itself -- including any version *I* might
propose.

So, I'll look into updating my versions of mingw-libpng and mingw-jpeg,
and making them setup-installable from cygutils.fruitbat.org.

I appreciate the effort that Peter made, and his generosity in wanting
to share his hard work with the rest of us.  Thanks, Peter.

--
Chuck





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ITP] mingw-libjpeg, mingw-libpng, mingw-openssl

Corinna Vinschen-2
On Feb  8 09:56, Charles Wilson wrote:

> Charles Wilson wrote:
> >Peter Quiring wrote:
> >>I've created some packages for Cygwin under the mingw category.  They
> >>are mingw versions of libjpeg, libpng,
> >
> >Sorry, but I have to veto these (but see good news, below)
>
> Just to clarify: "veto" is too strong a word for me to use, since my
> name isn't cgf or Corinna.  Rather, I "recommend strongly against"
> accepting Peter's proposed versions of these packages into the cygwin
> distro.
>
> However, it appears that Corinna agrees -- and she CAN use the word

Hey Charles, you can talk to me personally, there's no need to use
the third person form, really. ;-)

> "veto".  Also, I interpret her message in this thread to mean that she
> is also against incorporating *any* mingw-foo package other than those
> strictly needed for cygwin itself -- including any version *I* might
> propose.

Yes.  I just don't see what this should be good for.  The Cygwin distro
is what the name says, a Cygwin distro.  It contains mingw stuff for
building parts of Cygwin, and it contains mingw stuff which allows to
build native applications which don't need Cygwin.  Uh... and an Insight
interface which for historical and practical reasons is Win32-based, not
X-based.

Other than that, there's not much reason to put mingw packages into the
Cygwin distro, the same as you won't expect Cygwin packages bundled on a
MingW-dedicated distro, or MingW packages in a U/Win distro.  Maybe this
isn't quite valid a comparision, but you wouldn't expect Fedora packages
on the Debian site.

> I appreciate the effort that Peter made, and his generosity in wanting
> to share his hard work with the rest of us.  Thanks, Peter.

That's for sure.  It's just something which doesn't belong here, sorry.


Corinna

--
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ITP] mingw-libjpeg, mingw-libpng, mingw-openssl

Christopher Faylor-2
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 04:11:05PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

>On Feb  8 09:56, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> Charles Wilson wrote:
>> >Peter Quiring wrote:
>> >>I've created some packages for Cygwin under the mingw category.  They
>> >>are mingw versions of libjpeg, libpng,
>> >
>> >Sorry, but I have to veto these (but see good news, below)
>>
>> Just to clarify: "veto" is too strong a word for me to use, since my
>> name isn't cgf or Corinna.  Rather, I "recommend strongly against"
>> accepting Peter's proposed versions of these packages into the cygwin
>> distro.
>>
>> However, it appears that Corinna agrees -- and she CAN use the word
>
>Hey Charles, you can talk to me personally, there's no need to use
>the third person form, really. ;-)

Additionally, I think you're well within your rights to veto an attempt
to package something that you already maintain.

cgf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ITP] mingw-libjpeg, mingw-libpng, mingw-openssl

Peter Quiring-2
In reply to this post by Peter Quiring-2
Ok, thanks for all the info, I didn't know that mingw.sf.net was
distributing packages as I can now see.  I will try there.  Thanks.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ITP] mingw-libjpeg, mingw-libpng, mingw-openssl

Joe Smith-10
In reply to this post by Corinna Vinschen-2

"Corinna Vinschen" wrote:
> Charles said it all.  Thanks for the offer, but MingW packages really
> don't
> belong in the Cygwin distro, but in the MingW distro.

I'm sorry, but on this one I must respectfully dissagree.
While Cygwin is clearly a disto, i find mingw to be more a compilation
target platform.
MSYS is a distro, but I don't think mingw32 is. As you probably know even
Debian
distributes some Mingw32 packages, as that is reasonable. Rember that
cygming-special
gcc's are dual target. One target is native, the other target is a
cross-compilation target.

Remember that a cross-compiled target may in fact run on the same machine it
was built on,
as in the case of compiling to the same platform but a different executable
format.

Cygwin includes what is basicly a cross-compiler, so it is reasonable to
include
a base set of libraries for the target platform. That said, it is also
reasonable not to
include tose libraries.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ITP] mingw-libjpeg, mingw-libpng, mingw-openssl

Christopher Faylor-2
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:38:02AM -0500, Tacvek wrote:
>"Corinna Vinschen" wrote:
>>Charles said it all.  Thanks for the offer, but MingW packages really
>>don't belong in the Cygwin distro, but in the MingW distro.
>
>I'm sorry, but on this one I must respectfully dissagree.
>
>While Cygwin is clearly a disto, i find mingw to be more a compilation
>target platform.  MSYS is a distro, but I don't think mingw32 is.

Why don't we just stick with the definitions from the MinGW web site?

  MinGW: A collection of freely available and freely distributable Windows
  specific header files and import libraries combined with GNU toolsets
  that allow one to produce native Windows programs that do not rely on
  any 3rd-party C runtime DLLs.

  MSYS: A Minimal SYStem to provide POSIX/Bourne configure scripts the
  ability to execute and create a Makefile used by make.

I guess it depends on what you consider a "distro" but it sure sounds like
MinGW encompasses the notion of including something like a libjpeg import
library.

OTOH, there is nothing in the description of MSYS which would suggest
that it is a distro.  MSYS is just a repackaged cygwin fork anyway.

>As you probably know even Debian distributes some Mingw32 packages, as
>that is reasonable.  Rember that cygming-special gcc's are dual target.
>One target is native, the other target is a cross-compilation target.

I don't know that and a search of the debian site for the word "mingw"
does not unearth any hits.

There was a less than half-hearted attempt to provide a debian windows
release based on either cygwin or mingw that has been doing nothing for
quite a few years, though.   Hopefully this isn't what you are referring
to...

However, even if Debian actually does actually include mingw binaries,
we will just have to diverge in this case.

>Remember that a cross-compiled target may in fact run on the same
>machine it was built on, as in the case of compiling to the same
>platform but a different executable format.
>
>Cygwin includes what is basicly a cross-compiler, so it is reasonable
>to include a base set of libraries for the target platform.  That said,
>it is also reasonable not to include tose libraries.

This argument has already been raised a few times previously.  The fact
that you can use something to produce native windows binaries does not
mean that we want to start fleshing out the cygwin distribution with
native windows stuff.  The -mno-cygwin capability in the cygwin release
is used to build components of the cygwin distribution which can't be
compiled using cygwin1.dll.  If you really want support for native windows
you should be using the mingw compilers.

Anyway, this is not a subject for vote.  I agree 100% with Corinna here.
We're not going to include mingw headers or libraries in the cygwin
distribution.

Perhaps this should be clarified on the setup.html web page?  Lapo, if
you're reading this (since you're now the maintainer of this page, buwhahaha!)
would you be willing to come up with some words which explain this?

cgf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ITP] mingw-libjpeg, mingw-libpng, mingw-openssl

Brian Dessent
Christopher Faylor wrote:

> I don't know that and a search of the debian site for the word "mingw"
> does not unearth any hits.

Debian's package search page is not always that great.  But they do
provide three packages (mingw32, mingw32-binutils, and mingw32-runtime)
which together form a linux-hosted, windows-targeted cross compiler.
But these are of course native binaries, and debian does not (AFAIK)
distribute any actual target libraries or binaries for this toolchain.
So in this case Debian essentially mirrors Cygwin exactly: we both
include the cross compiler and runtime, but no target libraries --
except for bzip2 and zlib in the case of Cygwin since these are needed
to build parts of Cygwin itself.

But that aside, I still agree that mingw libraries do not belong on the
Cygwin mirrors.  If taken to its logical conclusion the situation is
absurd: Two completely separate and independant versions of each
library, each tool, etc.  That would just be ridiculous, especially
considering the confusion it would cause and the fact that unless you're
in a specific niche most of those mingw- packages would just be useless
and confusing to you.  (And it is a "specific niche" because many
developers that use mingw do so without Cygwin, either by using mingw
directly with an IDE like DevCpp or with MSYS.)

That is not to say that the work that Peter has done is not useful --
although this business about "nobody needs/wants shared libraries under
mingw" is complete bunk.  All he needs to do is create the required
setup.ini using genini, and then tell people that need his packages to
just paste his URL into setup.exe.  Everybody wins.  He can even setup a
short web page explaining this, which will show up for googlers.
Alternatively, he could package and make them avilable on the mingw
site, which has it's own kind of packaging system called mingwPORT.

I don't think anyone is saying that these packages wouldn't be useful,
it's just that they don't belong *here*.

Brian