Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3C3C5BAE.3C957E8F@wapme-systems.de>
Date:	Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:03:10 +0100
From:	Stipe Tolj <tolj AT wapme-systems DOT de>
Organization:	Wapme Systems AG
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.7 [de]C-CCK-MCD QXW0322b (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language:	de,en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin-apps <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Cygwin Python cyg vs. lib (was Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22 package ...)
References:	<3C3BFC4C DOT 15C3C81A AT wapme-systems DOT de> <20020109124852 DOT C1242 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <816103055 DOT 20020109125245 AT familiehaase DOT de> <20020109125559 DOT GB1672 AT dothill DOT com>

Jason Tishler wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 12:52:45PM +0100, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> > 2002-01-09 12:50:02, du schriebst:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 09:16:12AM +0100, Stipe Tolj wrote:
> > >> Users may have to include /usr/libexec to their PATH, due to the fact
> > >> that libhttpd.dll resides there. Should we move at least that core
> > >> library to /usr/bin to have it in PATH like the other cygfoo.dlls?
> >
> > > Shouldn't that be /usr/bin/cyghttpd.dll?
> >
> > It is the same like it is with perl or python.
> 
> When I did the initial patch to build Cygwin Python with a DLL core to
> support shared (i.e., DLL) extension modules I didn't want to fight this
> battle with the upstream maintainers too.  

that true for the Apache Group too, I guess. It's hard enough to get
the Cygwin related patches to the stable cvs tree, at least the 1.3
tree, which is something like "the gold box" for ASF :))

My basical approach is to get everything related to Cygwin from Apache
to the official source tree and hence this would raise the quistions:
"Hmm, and why do you guys on Cygwin need cygfoo.dll instead of havin
libfoo.dll? I don't see any need." and then the discussion begins...
:)

Just my 2ct on that.

> prefix should not affect any other platform.  Should I submit a patch
> to invoke this change?  Or, should I let sleeping dogs lie?

Same for me at the Apache front here. If the we commit that all shared
libraries _have to_ be cygfoo.dll named, I'll do it for Apache.

Stipe

tolj AT wapme-systems DOT de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapme Systems AG

Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf

Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299

E-Mail: info AT wapme-systems DOT de
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
wapme.net - wherever you are

- Raw text -