Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <3E10FB69.7000202@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:05:29 -0500
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: expect-20021218-1, gdb-20021218-1, tcltk-20021218-1
References: <20021219064238 DOT 488591C10B AT redhat DOT com> <3E039F0D DOT 2080100 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3E03A8BE DOT 2020602 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20021230152003 DOT GB1540 AT tishler DOT net> <20021230230202 DOT GC16336 AT redhat DOT com> <3E10DDEA DOT 90101 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20021231002843 DOT GA5206 AT redhat DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



Christopher Faylor wrote:
> If you want to change this policy, lobby in the insight mailing list.
> The insight developers were the people who made the decision to munge
> the library names.  However, the people who made the decision are
> now long gone so maybe there will be no resistance to eliminating the
> "cyg".

No, I don't want to eliminate the policy.  Well, maybe -- as for all the 
other DLLs on cygwin, mebbe the DLL should be cyg*.dll but the import 
lib should remain no-cyg.  That way, -lfoo doesn't need to be "changed" 
from its unixy normal value.  But that's neither here nor there.  The 
REAL problem is not that simple naming issue.  The real problem is the 
lack of necessary include files.

> If you think that tk header files are not getting properly installed,

That's correct.  However, there are two paths to follow, and both are ugly.

1) add the necessary header files to the installed-header list, so that 
they get installed under $prefix.  But that would put these additional 
tk header files in /usr/include/* (okay) and /usr/include/X11/ (not 
okay, on cygwin [*]).

2) Add special hacks so that the additional header files get installed 
*on cygwin* under a special subdirectory underneath $prefix -- e.g.
/usr/include/tk/ and /usr/include/tk/X11/.  But then, end users must 
explicitly "activate" the extra headers by passing 
CFLAGS=-I/usr/include/tk.  That's icky.

[*] the problem is, cygwin has decreed that /usr/include/X11/ belongs to 
REAL X11 programs.  Not fake-o pseudo-X compatibility headers like the 
xpm-noX stuff and win32-tk.

Since #2 is so hackish -- but it at least obeys the cygwin prohibition 
on fake X items in the real X11 headerdir -- it seems like it's 
something that should be done post-build and not within the Makefile. 
But I don't really care, as long as it gets done. :-)

> then inspect the Makefiles and suggest patches in the insight mailing
> list.  As I said, I'm just doing a "make install" to install tclt/k.

I missed where you said you were doing a simple "make install".  I 
thought you were munging it post-build. Oops.

> I'm not comfortable with doing more than that or trying to second-guess
> what is supposed to be installed.

Ok.

So, is the insight mailing list the "real" place where tcl and tk are 
developed, or is insight maintaining a fork?

--Chuck


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/