Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
X-Authentication-Warning: hp2.xraylith.wisc.edu: khan owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:14:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Mumit Khan <khan AT NanoTech DOT Wisc DOT EDU>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: two differents version of unctrl.h, one in cygwin-1.1.7 and one in ncurses-5.2
In-Reply-To: <20010116123004.H2692@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.96.1010116130536.8064D-100000@hp2.xraylith.wisc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> In this case, I'm not sure exactly why newlib has a unctrl.h file, though.
> I'm willing to use the ncurses version instead if that is the consensus.
> The ncurses layout on my linux system seems to be different than cygwin
> though so I don't see a clear correspondence.

Newlib has a bunch of stuff thrown in that may be there just for
historical reasons, or to support certain targets. I don't see any
other reason for newlib to contain unctrl. I have yet to see a non-
curses program include unctrl.h, but of course someone must've done
it for it to be included in newlib. Is there a problem in ncurses
one overwriting the newlib one? I can't see it offhand, but that's
untested. 

Linux does use a slightly different layout (and it varies among the
various flavors of Linux!), and a lot of that has to do with history 
as well. Historically, all the ncurses includes only went to 
$prefix/include/ncurses/; later on these include files were also 
symlink'd in $prefix/include directory so that configuration utilities 
could find curses.h without having to look in ncurses/curses.h. At
least true for a few of the more prevalent Linux distributions.

If there's a difference in Linux layout and what ncurses does out of the
box, I'd be more comfortable in using a ncurses-directed layout simply
to avoid gratuitous incompatibility. Lots of other systems use ncurses 
as well, and configuration utilities have no problem finding the right 
headers/libs.

Regards,
Mumit



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple