Re: MinGw port of gawkextlib

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: "Andrew J. Schorr" <aschorr@telemetry-investments.com>, bug-gawk@gnu.org
> From: Manuel Collado <mcollado2011@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 10:03:32 +0200
> 
> El 17/05/2022 a las 14:51, Andrew J. Schorr escribió:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 03:36:59PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Why the assumption that gawkapi.h and the Gawk executable are under
> >> the same PREFIX?
> >
> > Because that's what gawk's "make install" does.
> >
> >> That might be so on Unix, where installation trees
> >> are standardized, but not on Windows.  gawkapi.h should be where the C
> >> compiler looks for includes files, whereas the gawk executable should
> >> be somewhere on PATH.
> 
> Well, binary distributions of your EzWinports almost follow the Unix 
> convention of installing executables, docs and includes under the same 
> tree.

Sure, because I think this is the best way.  But nothing prevents
people who think otherwise to unzip each binary package under a
different root (if they don't mind fiddling with PATH and some other
system-wide settings).  Or have a single root for everything they
install from ezwinports, and other roots for other packages.  Or any
other organization of their systems.  You yourself say that:

> Yes. Independently developed Windows tools are usually installed in 
> independent locations.


> But _compatible_ Windows ports of GNU software pieces are better
> installed and merged in a common install tree.

Apart from 32-bit vs 64-bit, what other kinds of "incompatibilities"
do you have in mind?  AFAIK, all native MS-Windows binaries are
compatible, and can live in the same tree.  That's how my system is
organized -- it isn't that my bin/ directory has only MinGW programs,
far from that.