Charles Wilson wrote: > > (*) counter argument: gtk+ on cygwin currently uses X. However, the > code is THERE to use native MS windowing -- because there is a native MS > port (on a separate CVS branch). It might be possible, some time in the > future, to have TWO different "gtk+" builds on cygwin: and X one and an > MS one (it is not CURRENTLY possible to do that). But, in that > eventuality, you could then have a whole SLEW of cygwin ports of > gtk+-based programs that could be compile as "X" apps or as "native MS > windowing" apps -- depending on which version of the gtk+ libs they were > linked against. But should we borrow trouble against something that may > never happen? (Tor Lilqvist, maintainer of the windows port of gtk+, > doesn't seem too enthusiastic about refactoring to separate his > native-windowing stuff from his msvcrt-not-glibc-runtime stuff; it's all > #if _MSWIN ...).
Ah, now the point at which I was trying to drive home at. Yes, IMO, we should "borrow trouble" as that trouble is most likely to happen. It's much like the MinGW libraries where the headers and libraries need to be segregated, so will these apps. Earnie.
