On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Charles Wilson wrote: > William A. Hoffman wrote: > > I recently ran setup, and one of the new packages, I think gdb, caused > > a tclsh83.exe to be installed into /usr/bin. It would be nice if > > this were a full working tclsh83.exe, but it is not. However, it conflicted > > with the working tclsh83.exe I already had in my path. Shouldn't the > > name of this by cygtclsh83.exe? > > No. Are you suggesting that all 508 of the .exe's in my /bin should > really be named "cyg*.exe"? "cyglynx" "cygman" "cygless" just because > they MIGHT conflict with a mingw or native version of less.exe or man.exe? > > If that is NOT what you are suggestion -- e.g. that only tclsh83 should > be renamed -- why? Why is tclsh83 special?
By that same token, why do the tcl libraries have "cyg" in their name? Eg: libtcl83.a is named libcygtcl83.a. Why? It's still tcl. Why are the libraries name different for this platform? I've had to hack some autoconf generated configure scripts because they wanted 'libtcl83' not 'libcygtcl83'. > It's easy to avoid executable PATH conflicts -- just make sure the tclsh > you want appears in the PATH before the one you don't like. End of problem. > > --Chuck > > P.S. Now, we *do* name all DLL's with a special 'cyg' prefix, but that > is because DLLs are a much more complicated problem than EXEs (memory > resident, etc etc) For DLLs, I can see why they are tagged with 'cyg' (this *is* still Windows under the hood), but what about static linklibs? -- Peter A. Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/