<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8' ?>

<rss version='2.0' xmlns:lj='http://www.livejournal.org/rss/lj/1.0/' xmlns:atom10='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'>
<channel>
  <title>lmemsm</title>
  <link>https://lmemsm.dreamwidth.org/</link>
  <description>lmemsm - Dreamwidth Studios</description>
  <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2022 14:38:00 GMT</lastBuildDate>
  <generator>LiveJournal / Dreamwidth Studios</generator>
  <lj:journal>lmemsm</lj:journal>
  <lj:journaltype>personal</lj:journaltype>
<item>
  <guid isPermaLink='true'>https://lmemsm.dreamwidth.org/25156.html</guid>
  <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2022 14:38:00 GMT</pubDate>
  <title>Native POSIX enviroment for Windows</title>
  <link>https://lmemsm.dreamwidth.org/25156.html</link>
  <description>While WSL is great, I&apos;ve always wanted a native POSIX environment for developing on Windows.  I wanted one that didn&apos;t require specialized DLLs with GNU GPL licenses such as as Cygwin and MSYS do.  There are other options available.  Midipix provides a POSIX environment for easily porting and developing POSIX compliant applications on Windows.  The licensing isn&apos;t any more lenient than Cygwin though.  It does use the MUSL C library which is a nice feature.  There&apos;s AT&amp;T&apos;s Uwin project which is now available as Open Source:  &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/att/uwin&quot;&gt;https://github.com/att/uwin&lt;/a&gt;  The license for the project isn&apos;t exactly compatible with GPL software.  I&apos;ve looked into native POSIX shell alternatives to those found in projects like Cygwin and msys.  Bash is not easy to port to Windows without Cygwin or msys DLLs to support various functionality.  It isn&apos;t exactly easy to port to DOS either.  Most bash ports to DOS and Windows are older ones.  One Windows port that builds successfully on Windows with MinGW32 is:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://win-bash.sourceforge.net/&quot;&gt;http://win-bash.sourceforge.net/&lt;/a&gt;  I investigated the mksh project at one point and even offered to work on a Windows port.  They were not in the least bit interested and already had some commercial company looking to create a port to Windows using there own proprietary code to provide a POSIX compatibility layer.  So even if their plan was successful, it wouldn&apos;t exactly provide a native Windows port anyone could use in their projects.  Tcsh has support for Windows.  Zsh was also very popular on Windows.  Checking the versions of zsh, the latest Windows version I could find that compiled with no issues using MinGW32 was 3.0.8.1:  &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/oldfaber/wzsh&quot;&gt;https://github.com/oldfaber/wzsh&lt;/a&gt;  The zsh project seems to have progressed to a much later version since then.  I&apos;ve also experimented with Swiss which provides a Busybox-like set of tools with a shell.  Speaking of Busybox, there is a port of it to Windows which provides an implementation of the ash shell:  &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/rmyorston/busybox-w32&quot;&gt;https://github.com/rmyorston/busybox-w32&lt;/a&gt;  Unfortunately, the build system works in such a way that you need to cross-compile it to get anything to build properly.  Even after attempting to cross-compile using the source code, I still ended up with a program that crashes on exit.  The busybox-w32 executables at the official sites don&apos;t seem to have that problem though.  So much for being able to reproduce an executable others are distributing just from the source code.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;b&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;https://lmemsm.dreamwidth.org/25156.html&quot;&gt;Read more ...&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://www.dreamwidth.org/tools/commentcount?user=lmemsm&amp;ditemid=25156&quot; width=&quot;30&quot; height=&quot;12&quot; alt=&quot;comment count unavailable&quot; style=&quot;vertical-align: middle;&quot;/&gt; comments</description>
  <comments>https://lmemsm.dreamwidth.org/25156.html</comments>
  <category>mingw32</category>
  <category>windows</category>
  <category>gnu autotools</category>
  <category>core utilities</category>
  <category>bash</category>
  <category>make</category>
  <category>zsh</category>
  <category>ash</category>
  <category>posix</category>
  <lj:security>public</lj:security>
  <lj:reply-count>0</lj:reply-count>
</item>
<item>
  <guid isPermaLink='true'>https://lmemsm.dreamwidth.org/1494.html</guid>
  <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:41:33 GMT</pubDate>
  <title>Build Systems - Alternatives to GNU autotools, cmake, etc.</title>
  <link>https://lmemsm.dreamwidth.org/1494.html</link>
  <description>I&apos;ve been looking for useful, efficient, user-friendly alternatives to build tools like GNU autotools and cmake.  I&apos;ve even created lists of build tool alternatives at various wikis and sites related to programming and compilers.  If there&apos;s interest, I can post some of that information here along with pros and cons of various tools.  I think, during my searches, I&apos;ve found some good alternatives for my own projects and to use with my own build script generator.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;b&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;https://lmemsm.dreamwidth.org/1494.html&quot;&gt;Read more ...&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://www.dreamwidth.org/tools/commentcount?user=lmemsm&amp;ditemid=1494&quot; width=&quot;30&quot; height=&quot;12&quot; alt=&quot;comment count unavailable&quot; style=&quot;vertical-align: middle;&quot;/&gt; comments</description>
  <comments>https://lmemsm.dreamwidth.org/1494.html</comments>
  <category>autoconf</category>
  <category>c</category>
  <category>c++</category>
  <category>configure</category>
  <category>pkgconf</category>
  <category>c/c++</category>
  <category>build scripts</category>
  <category>gnu autotools</category>
  <category>cmake</category>
  <category>make</category>
  <category>cdetect</category>
  <category>m4</category>
  <category>pkg-config</category>
  <category>perl</category>
  <lj:security>public</lj:security>
  <lj:reply-count>0</lj:reply-count>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
