osmocom on windows

[Peter Stuge]

Hi,

Dieter Spaar wrote:
> > Does e.g. the CodeSourcery toolchain really need Cygwin? That would
> > suck.
> 
> I don't know CodeSourcery, I use GNU ARM directly from www.gnuarm.com.
> According to the CodeSourcery FAQ, they do not require Cygwin.

Ok, I think that's good.


> Are there any benefit using CodeSourcery ? I had issues in the past
> with the firmware using a different GNU ARM version, so I switched
> back to 4.0.2 which seems to be the same other use on Linux and
> so far it works OK.

They are both just binary distributions of GCC for ARM. I doubt there
are major differences. Maybe CS do more complete testing before they
package up their versions, but there's no guarantee.

GNUARM is clearly more focused on GNU environments, so I think it
just makes sense that it is Cygwin affine.


> You don't seem to like Cygwin, my experience with it is not that bad,

Ah, no, I don't have anything against Cygwin, and I think it's really
great in many ways, but it *is* something different than Windows.

CS G++ Lite has the advantage of being plain native Windows programs.

Cygwin people are always very careful to mention that Cygwin is not
Windows, and I think their point is sound. Cygwin is an extra layer.

In practise it can be negligeable, just another DLL, but it isn't
Windowsy, and for someone who wants Windowsy, Cygwin isn't a really
good answer. (But it can save plenty of time instead!)


> OpenBSC (not with GPRS yet due to the need for the TUN device),

OpenVPN has one, it's signed too.


> OsmocomBB, GNUradio and Airprobe run with minor adjustments (just
> to name GSM related stuff I use under Cygwin).

Cool, that's proof that Cygwin is pretty good stuff. It doesn't say
almost anything about how these projects run on Windows though.

That isn't neccessarily a bad thing at all, evolving the project
internally or the featureset or whatever can be much more important
than adapting the project to work "on" more operating systems.


//Peter