Subject: Re: Re: Re: CPAN Upload: N/NI/NI-S/Tk-804.025_beta14.patch.gz
From: Nick Ing-Simmons <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: "Nick Ing-Simmons" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:21:02 +0000

Dominix <[email-masked]> writes:
>from my point of view Cygwin expand a lot Win32 capabilities with a very
>small footprint, and as a serious Open source project it had a very
>responsive support throught his mailling list ( [email-masked] ) that you
>can browse throught NNTP, thanks to gmane.  http://news.gmane.org/   or
>news://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.cygwin
>
>>
>> Again I am not saying you mixed the options, I am saying that
>> the #ifdef-s got mangled by me applying patches from folk
>> where neither I nor the person that supplied the patch understanding
>> what is going on. So if you understand cygwin you can send me
>> patches that move #ifdef-s or mess with config process to fix it.
>>
>
>I'll try, with a little help from my friends ...  :-)

I would really much rather someone (you?) that knows cygwin and wants 
Tk became took care of this - if their support is as good as you say 
then given that it "used to work" and Linux/XFree86 and Win32 Native 
both work now it cannot be too far wrong.

Personally I haven't a "need" for Cygwin - I do most of my develoment 
(home and work) on Linux. When I need Win32 I want native apps to avoid 
complicated dependancies (and in work case licence paranoia from management).
I am more than willing to apply patches to make Tk work, but don't 
have expertise to diagnose problems.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/