Closed mingwandroid closed 7 years ago
Is MSYS widespread enough to add support for it to ack? Every platform like this that we add support for is one that we have to maintain going forward. I have enough trouble with Windows/Cygwin bummers as it is.
MSYS was / is badly maintained. This is MSYS2. We are closer to Arch Linux or homebrew on OSX and can make fairly strong promises about being active participants in working with upstream projects. On Apr 21, 2014 2:32 AM, "Andy Lester" notifications@github.com wrote:
Is MSYS widespread enough to add support for it to ack? Every platform like this that we add support for is one that we have to maintain going forward. I have enough trouble with Windows/Cygwin bummers as it is.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/petdance/ack2/pull/450#issuecomment-40910501 .
OMG, a cygwin fork with decent package-management is a wonderful concept. This has promise. I'll want it next time i touch windows.
While MSYS2 is such a new project it doesn't yet have weight enough to require us to take this patch from downstream, it is truly harmless wherever perl OS ID isn't 'msys'
. I see no reason not to take this patch.
Anything that makes 'ack' and 'perl' more accessible under windows is a good thing. strawberry perl is lovely but this is full POSIX userspace too; getting ack2 in there is a definitely good thing.
I note with favor that this patch includes update to t/Util.pm .
I vote yes.
Thanks 14d223a
I work on the MSYS2 project ( https://sourceforge.net/projects/msys2/ ) which takes Windows and adds Arch Linux's pacman tool to it to give it a good (IMHO) package development and management system. We have our own OS identifier for perl of "msys". For the purposes of our MSYS2 ack, we need to be considered to be like Cygwin (MSYS? is a fork of Cygwin).