Chuck, Would you advise that Cygwin/XFree86 make a new binary release the depends on cygncurses6.dll rather than cygncurses5.dll?
Harold > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Charles > Wilson > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 4:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Problem and Fix: Missing cygncurses5.dll... > > > <flame on> > > Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 01:47:20PM -0500, Wayne Willcox wrote: > > > >>On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 02:44:54PM -0400, Thomas Chadwick wrote: > >> > >>>Problem Synopsis: > >>> > >>>After updating my existing Cygwin/Xfree86 install with Cygwin's > >>>Setup.exe, I launched XFree86 and tried to bring up an xterm. However, > >>>I got an error that said, to the effect, "cannot find > cygncurses5.dll". > >>>A little poking around made it apparent that the "upgrade" > > > Oh yeah -- gotta love those sarcasm quotation marks. Yeah, I spent > several hours -- actually most of a weekend -- creating the new > package(s). I solicited comments before and after from the cygwin-apps > list for several weeks. I did all this so that I could break your > installation with a faux "upgrade". > > It's not an "upgrade". It is an *upgrade*. Most of the improvements > are not user-visible -- but are incremental towards getting ncurses to > build *as a dll* OOB. The previous version differed from the official > release by a 550k patch. This one by only 50k. Better, no? The FSF > people might actually accept this patch... > > >>>>blew away the > >>>file /bin/cygncurses5.dll and replaced it with /bin/cygncurses6.dll, > >>>hence breaking the xterm build. > >>> > >>>Problem Fix/Work-Around: > >>> > >>>I found that by simply copying /bin/cygncurses6.dll to > > > Funny, somebody else already suggesting your workaround, and was told > (by me) that it was the WRONG thing to do. > > http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2001-10/msg00589.html > > Do you honestly think the ncurses maintainer (that is, me) changed the > DLL name on a whim? That if only I had been thinking, I wouldn't have > done that -- and thus the correct fix is to rename it back? > > It actually took affirmative effort to change the dll name from ...5 to > ...6 -- surely the maintainer (i.e. me) wouldn't do extra work if there > wasn't a good reason... > > >>> > >>could you have used a sym link... I would think so. > >> > > > No. *Windows* searches for DLL's. *Windows* doesn't understand cygwin > symlinks (okay, it sorta does now that they are shortcuts -- but the > windows DLL loader won't follow shortcuts). > > Besides, the right thing to do is NOT to trick windows into loading the > cygncurses6.dll instead of the 5.dll it wants. 6 and 5 are *different*. > > Note: this is the last time I will respond to any message on this > "problem". > > --Chuck >
