Subject: Re: Building C-Kermit (6.0.192) with Cygwin 1.1
From: [email-masked] (Jeff)
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 16:01:08 -0700
Newsgroups: lists.cygwin

On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:11:01 -0400, Chris Faylor <[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 10:48:59AM -0700, Jeff wrote:
>
>>Which of the makefile targets work best?  I tried modifying the linux
>>target, and get:
<big snip>

>Why does this explain anything?  I don't see any hint of a "u_long" in this.
>Cygwin defines u_long in /usr/include/sys/types.h just like most other
>UNIX systems.

Thanks, that solved *that* problem-- I copied the typedef to the top of
the .c file, and *that* module built without error.  The next one died
with some other error, but for the same reason: Things are being left
out that should be in, or v.v.  C-Kermit has so many cross-referenced
#ifdef's, #ifndef's, (lines upon lines of "#ifdef WHATEVER; #define
THIS; #undefine THAT:...) and #include's pointing back and forth across
different files that it is really not possible for me to tell what's
happening.

So, I'm back to my original question:  Which of the makefile targets
work best?  When presented with a package that has very system-specific
targets, which is best?  Which flavor of Unix does Cygwin most
resemble?  Linux?  FreeBSD?  Or maybe a more general target, if
available, such as BSD or System5R4?  Or-?  C-Kermit has never failed
to build and run "straight out of the box" when it was obvious which
makefile target to use.

Thanks again for your help,

Jeff

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to [email-masked]