delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm |
Sender: | cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com |
List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com> |
List-Archive: | <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/> |
List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com> |
List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs> |
Delivered-To: | mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com |
Message-ID: | <3BF7075C.9090608@ece.gatech.edu> |
Date: | Sat, 17 Nov 2001 19:57:00 -0500 |
From: | Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> |
User-Agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 |
X-Accept-Language: | en-us |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
To: | Gareth Pearce <tilps AT hotmail DOT com> |
CC: | cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com |
Subject: | Re: RFC - a few packages |
References: | <OE38lrrQSiRKhrgBnFN00012b6a AT hotmail DOT com> |
popt is already part of the standard dist. I am its current maintainer, but have no objections if you want to take it over. --Chuck Gareth Pearce wrote: > Hi > > I sort of had the idea that the set of packages that are > a) in debian main - required/important/standard > b) capable to port at current time > c) not debian specific at all > are likely to be acceptable ... > Is this a fair assessment? > I am just trying to build up a list of packages to port in my spare time and > this seems like an effective way of getting a list. > > To start with I am part way through porting (part way mainly because I am > inexperience with shared librarys so am unsure if the shared libraries i > have made so far are very good - also my builds currently depend on some > changes to cygwin which I have posted to cygwin-patchs - or mentioned on > cygwin ... but otherwise havent gone very far yet.) > slang > libpopt > newt > whiptail > > are these reasonable? > > While I am at it ... > My slang port seems reasonable except for one thing. The 'special' > characters it uses for borders of windows etc are all ugly, like when you > take ascii art and try to open it in windows - because all the line draw > chacters from the character set have been replaced with umlautised > characters and stuff. Any suggestions on how best to deal with this? (ie is > there anyway to change the character-set - or should i just hack the list to > find best matches available from the windows character set that is default). > > Hmm one last question - 'versioned' dll's ... is there some standard for > naming them ... because they cant be numbered after dll ... like with so. > > Regards, > Gareth >
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |