Mail Archives: cygwin/2000/10/07/20:05:46
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:11:01 -0400, Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com> wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 10:48:59AM -0700, Jeff wrote:
>
>>Which of the makefile targets work best? I tried modifying the linux
>>target, and get:
<big snip>
>Why does this explain anything? I don't see any hint of a "u_long" in this.
>Cygwin defines u_long in /usr/include/sys/types.h just like most other
>UNIX systems.
Thanks, that solved *that* problem-- I copied the typedef to the top of
the .c file, and *that* module built without error. The next one died
with some other error, but for the same reason: Things are being left
out that should be in, or v.v. C-Kermit has so many cross-referenced
#ifdef's, #ifndef's, (lines upon lines of "#ifdef WHATEVER; #define
THIS; #undefine THAT:...) and #include's pointing back and forth across
different files that it is really not possible for me to tell what's
happening.
So, I'm back to my original question: Which of the makefile targets
work best? When presented with a package that has very system-specific
targets, which is best? Which flavor of Unix does Cygwin most
resemble? Linux? FreeBSD? Or maybe a more general target, if
available, such as BSD or System5R4? Or-? C-Kermit has never failed
to build and run "straight out of the box" when it was obvious which
makefile target to use.
Thanks again for your help,
Jeff
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
- Raw text -