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 >
