Hi Alan, --- Alan Hourihane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 11:25:11 -0400, Harold Hunt wrote: > > Nicholas, > > > > I wasn't even aware of XFree86 4.2.1 until you mentioned it. > > > > I am not sure if I will build a release of it or not... seems > like a lot of > > trouble for just a few fixes, with non of them Cygwin-specific. > > 4.2.1 has an important security fix - arguably whether it matters > for cygwin based installations though.
Yeah, you're probably right. Still I haven't checked but I thought it contained [operational] bug fixes as well? > > As for building versioned DLLs --- I have no idea. I am not > knowledgeable > > enough about that topic to be able to give you an answer, or even > to be able > > to discuss it. > > > > In regards to Xft1 and XFt2, Alan Hourihane and I noticed a > problem with > > both of them being built and one DLL (version 1) wiping out the > other DLL > > (version 2), so we said to hell with it and stopped building Xft1 > and went > > full-on with Xft2. As to whether or not that was a good > decision, I can > > only say that Alan thought it was okay, so it is okay with me :) > > For this issue, I would revisit it, if someone claimed that there > are applications for Cygwin/XFree86 that relied on Xft1. I suspect > for the number of applications that will become available for > Cygwin/XFree86 they'll now be using Xft2 anyway. But please speakup > if this is a problem, I will take another look at fixing it. Well this isn't a problem for me. Since you probably have a close working relationship with Keith, I assume you are more clued-in than me. I made a hasty assumption and my thinking Xft2 was not source compatible with Xft1 apps, so it may not be true. Can you confirm this? I should be releasing QT2 shortly, which uses Xft, but I haven't investigated if it compiles against Xft2 headers/libraries. I think some of the gtk-1 stuff uses Xft1, and someone is working on this. Just to be safe, I'm CC:'ing Steve O. who is working on the Gnome port. I still think, though, that it would be worth the effort to bring Xfree's runtime libraries into sync with the "generally accepted" Cygwin standard: "cyg" + <library name - "lib"> + "ABI Revision" + ".dll" (i.e. cygpopt0.dll) I'm sure this would not only fix the issues now, but might prevent further headaches in the future. However, I know the hell that is Imake, so I'm not going to make a big fuss over this now. Perhaps a suggestion for Cygwin/XFree-4.3.0? > > So, in summary, there is not likely to be a release effort > applied to > > getting 4.2.1 out the door... unless I suddenly come up on a > great amount of > > time. Also, Alan shipped me the standard X packages last time, > which I fed > > through the Cygwin packaging script, so if he does that this time > I'll > > likely make a 4.2.1 release. > > There's no bandwidth from me at the moment to cover this, I'm > swamped > underneath lots and lots of work. Hmm... I guess it wouldn't make too much sense at the moment. Just if Harold was going to release a new test version, that's all. While I have you here, I have a question which Harold said he didn't know. Why was libXaw built as a static library [it's usually shared on linux]? I'm running into some runtime issues with my libXaw3d package [I built it as dll] and I suspect the answer lies in the reasoning behind that question. I was also wondering how you generated the foo-def.cpp? Is there a script that does this or do you just have to go through the entire source? Maybe I'm missing something because I've been spoiled by libtool/ld autogenerating the exports... Cheers, Nicholas __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
