Mail Archives: cygwin/2011/01/27/13:20:24
On 1/27/2011 12:18 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 00:33 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> I'm working on this very very slowly but I don't have an ETA for when this will
>> be fixed.
>
> What exactly are you trying to "fix"? I thought we agreed that the
> solution was to move to a *NIX/X11 Tcl/Tk as already exists in Ports,
> and rebuild the handful of programs which actually link against them
> (namely: expect, insight, python, ruby, tcl3270, tcl-brlapi, tcl-db*,
> tcl-ming, and WordNet.). I've already done much of the work
And so did I:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2009-09/msg00378.html
FYI, this controversy goes back a LONG way:
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-10/msg00316.html
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-10/msg00343.html
> so why
> must this take so long?
Dunno -- probably just that cgf's tuits are in _extremely_ short supply.
I think the last word was this:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2009-10/msg00331.html
IIRC, there was talk about the death of insight (upstream), and we were
kinda in limbo about that, and then it started to look like insight
(upstream) would /not/ die, and we went into a holding pattern...
Basically, the question of tcl/tk is tightly coupled to gdb/insight and
cgf's plans for the latter -- which is in turn strongly affected by
Keith Seitz's plans for upstream insight.
--
Chuck
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -