Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Reply-To: From: "Suhaib M. Siddiqi" To: "Cygwin AT Sourceware. Cygnus. Com" Subject: X11 for cygwin CD 1.0 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:40:24 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 I must have missed the following message. The termcap problem you are reporting could be because of \r\n issues. I really doubt libs from pre-alpha-xfree-cygwin-b201.tar.bz2 would work without problems. If you are using on DLLs for your X-applications then it is ok. For porting X apps from UNIX you might get _ctype_ undefined references, becasue the X11libs and clinets were compiled with B20.1. Suhaib ------------------------------------------------------------------------ X11 for cygwin CD 1.0 To: cygwin at sourceware dot cygnus dot com Subject: X11 for cygwin CD 1.0 From: Steve Jorgensen Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 12:40:55 -0600 (MDT) I know that this list has been told to use the x11r6.4-cygwin-ss-dev.tar.gz version of Xwindows for the cygwin 1.0 cd, but before it was discussed on this list, I found the pre-alpha-xfree-cygwin-b20.1.tar.bz2 version. While the Xserver itself is in the pre-alpha stages, the libraries and clients seem to work as well or better than the x11r6.4-cygwin-ss-dev.tar.gz version. Is there some reason why we should not use this pre-alpha-xfree-cygwin-b20.1 version? The x11r6.4-cygwin-ss-dev.tar.gz version can't run xterm, it just complains about not being able to find an appropriate termcap entry, even after I added one. Also the header files produce tons of annoying warnings, because they lack return types on several function declarations, which produce warnings about assuming int for the return type. I thinking about sticking with the pre-alpha version, because the above reasons, but I wanted to make sure there aren't any hidden gotcha's.. :) Thanks for any information. Steve -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com