[CentOS-devel] Ja oder nein: is cygwin-setup process a viable alternative to present day builds?

Sat Feb 19 03:51:50 UTC 2011
Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Larry Vaden <vaden at texoma.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 3) As far as I know Cygwin doesn't build locally. Stuff is built
>> 'somewhere else' and then cygwin-setup downloads the archives, unpacks
>> them, and installs it into \cygwin.
> You are correct about that, something I just learned. See below the sig.
> That leaves Gentoo's process as the only other one with which I am
> familiar as a _potential_ candidate for a compatible release in a
> greatly reduced amount of time.

Then you're working with an entirely different OS every time you build
it. Your binaries may vary profoundly based on subtle differences in
available libraries at build time, especially for static components,
and as a developer you take a significant risk of feature creep
breaking your older software. It's great for development, *rotten* for
industrial class stability.

This is not to discredit the "secret sauce" developers of Gentoo, who
integrate a lot of non-compliant open source packages into a powerful,
fast, and flexible build structure. By the time you've wrapped a build
synchronization structure on it to ensure consistent environments and
cross compatibility, you will have rebuilt RPM or deb and rediscovered
and had to resolve almost all the same problems.

I've repeatedly seen this sort of "I can do it better myself, just the
way I think it should work!" with system auditing tools, source
control systems, and software building structures. It's usually far,
far more efficient to learn the existing structure well and build on
it than to start from scratch: a lot of hardwon lessons are very
expensive to relearn.