Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/12/17/01:18:32
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 12:37:45AM -0500, elfyn-cygwin AT mail DOT exposure DOT org DOT uk wrote:
>Just checked on both of my servers, they symlink /usr/include/term.h with
>ncurses/term.h, running RedHat 6.1 and 8.0. Should cygwin/ncurses do the
>same?
>
> The QNX proprietary term_* functions have been deprecated in favor of
> ncurses. ncurses is a set of terminal-independent routines for painting
> screens and handling input events......
>
> .....The file /usr/include/term.h is now an ncurses header file; you'll
> find the old <term.h> in /usr/include/sys/term.h. An error message is
> displayed if you combine the old term_* and ncurses header files.
Since the code clearly checks for the situation of finding the needed headers
in /usr/include/ncurses, I don't see any reason why this package should be
used as a justification for adding a symlink.
>Btw, I put the below __CYGWIN__ mention in because it still complained even
>when when it was passed the sufficient defines in CPPFLAGS and CXXFLAGS
>before running configure.
Usually when I see things like HAVE_NCURSES_CURSES_H, it suggests to me
that the author of the source code is correctly attempting to set things
up in a general, non-system-specific way and is testing for various
capabilities and oddities of the operating environment. System-specific
checks like "#ifdef ultrix" in source quickly become unmanageable.
That's why HAVE_NCURSES_CURSES_H is nice.
There's no reason why it couldn't work in this scenario. Of course, if it
"complained" maybe all you need to do is rebuke it sternly.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -