Proposal for discussion - remove all Windows-port cruft

[Sanjeev Gupta]

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Gary E. Miller <gem at rellim.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 13 May 2016 23:39:31 -0400
> "Eric S. Raymond" <esr at thyrsus.com> wrote:
>
> > Now that Windows is supposedly able to run Linux binaries, it seems
> > to me we should be able to discard the Windows port cruft.
>
> Uh, I never saw that.  Citation please?
>
> Most people I have talked to said it did not work yet.
>

NTPsec does not compile using Bash for Windows (gpsd does, I had reported
that earlier.  *Compile* , not actually run usefully, the /dev/usbxx code
does not get translated).

In any case, while I can imagine the client-side and monitoring code
running through the shim, how likely is it that Gary and Hal (and Dr Mills)
PLL code would survive being machine-translated to a non-POSIX kernel?

We are still having debates on if PPS and RFC-PPS are supported (or
supported correctly) on various Unix-like systems.  Each time some fires up
MachoBSD 8.15, someone on this list with white hair has to do debug has_PPS
macros and headers.

Windows ntpd has to work as a native Windows binary , or not at all.  The
shim does not provide that kind of functionality, and MS is not even
hinting as that as a goal.

If there is interest, I have Bash for Windows installed on my laptop, with
Ubuntu Yakkety Yak, and I can post compile logs.  But as I said, even if it
compiles, then what?  What does /dev/pps0 correspond to?

-- 
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208     http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ntpsec.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20160515/f93904cc/attachment.html>