Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/01/28/01:52:20
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
> William A. Hoffman wrote:
> > I recently ran setup, and one of the new packages, I think gdb, caused
> > a tclsh83.exe to be installed into /usr/bin. It would be nice if
> > this were a full working tclsh83.exe, but it is not. However, it conflicted
> > with the working tclsh83.exe I already had in my path. Shouldn't the
> > name of this by cygtclsh83.exe?
>
> No. Are you suggesting that all 508 of the .exe's in my /bin should
> really be named "cyg*.exe"? "cyglynx" "cygman" "cygless" just because
> they MIGHT conflict with a mingw or native version of less.exe or man.exe?
>
> If that is NOT what you are suggestion -- e.g. that only tclsh83 should
> be renamed -- why? Why is tclsh83 special?
By that same token, why do the tcl libraries have "cyg" in their name?
Eg: libtcl83.a is named libcygtcl83.a. Why? It's still tcl. Why are the
libraries name different for this platform? I've had to hack some
autoconf generated configure scripts because they wanted 'libtcl83' not
'libcygtcl83'.
> It's easy to avoid executable PATH conflicts -- just make sure the tclsh
> you want appears in the PATH before the one you don't like. End of problem.
>
> --Chuck
>
> P.S. Now, we *do* name all DLL's with a special 'cyg' prefix, but that
> is because DLLs are a much more complicated problem than EXEs (memory
> resident, etc etc)
For DLLs, I can see why they are tagged with 'cyg' (this *is* still
Windows under the hood), but what about static linklibs?
--
Peter A. Castro <doctor AT fruitbat DOT org> or <Peter DOT Castro AT oracle DOT com>
"Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood
--
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 -