Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <3BF7075C.9090608@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 19:57:00 -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:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gareth Pearce <tilps AT hotmail DOT com>
CC: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: RFC - a few packages
References: <OE38lrrQSiRKhrgBnFN00012b6a AT hotmail DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

popt is already part of the standard dist.  I am its current maintainer, 
but have no objections if you want to take it over.

--Chuck


Gareth Pearce wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I sort of had the idea that the set of packages that are
> a) in debian main - required/important/standard
> b) capable to port at current time
> c) not debian specific at all
> are likely to be acceptable ...
> Is this a fair assessment?
> I am just trying to build up a list of packages to port in my spare time and
> this seems like an effective way of getting a list.
> 
> To start with I am part way through porting (part way mainly because I am
> inexperience with shared librarys so am unsure if the shared libraries i
> have made so far are very good - also my builds currently depend on some
> changes to cygwin which I have posted to cygwin-patchs - or mentioned on
> cygwin ... but otherwise havent gone very far yet.)
> slang
> libpopt
> newt
> whiptail
> 
> are these reasonable?
> 
> While I am at it ...
> My slang port seems reasonable except for one thing.  The 'special'
> characters it uses for borders of windows etc are all ugly, like when you
> take ascii art and try to open it in windows - because all the line draw
> chacters from the character set have been replaced with umlautised
> characters and stuff.  Any suggestions on how best to deal with this? (ie is
> there anyway to change the character-set - or should i just hack the list to
> find best matches available from the windows character set that is default).
> 
> Hmm one last question - 'versioned' dll's ... is there some standard for
> naming them ... because they cant be numbered after dll ... like with so.
> 
> Regards,
> Gareth
>