Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 09:29:25PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>The FAQ says:
>>
>>"Almost anything related to Cygwin is on-topic here.  Please note,
>>that this is not a mailing list for the discussion of general Windows
>>topics.  There are many many other places for that on the Internet.
>>
>>Also note, that if you are interested in the Cygwin XFree86 project
>>which is porting the XFree86 code to Windows, then the correct
>>mailing list for this discussion is [EMAIL PROTECTED] "
>>
>>SH: I assume then that the FAQ does not need to be amended and
>>that Chris Faylor can contradict the FAQ whenever he chooses.
>
>Wow, yeah, if the Cygwin FAQ actually said anything like that it would
>be the cause of some confusion.
>
>That is the information you get if you send a command to ezmlm asking
>for the FAQ for the cygwin-at-cygwin mailing list.

Just to clarify, this isn't the information that you get when you ask
the mailing list manager for the FAQ.  This was what you got when you
send email to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".

So, the word "FAQ" doesn't really apply here.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/
FAQ:   http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/

Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

Still here swinging away, huh?  Haven't you already made these points?  I
was going to let this slide because you had the courtesy to apologize, even
if you tried to retroactively justify your rude behavior.  However, if you
want to keep this going, I guess I can comply.  I love pointing out fractured
thinking to people.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 01:52:47PM -0700, Stephen P. Harris wrote:
>- Original Message - 
>From: "Alexander Gottwald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 1:02 AM
>Subject: Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin
>
>
>>Stephen P. Harris wrote:
>>
>>>Also I didn't know .so files were forbidden to Cygwin
>>
>>They are not forbidden. But standard shared library naming on windows
>>is .dll and this is used by most cygwin packages.
>>
>Chris Faylor wrote:  "0. Cygwin/Windows do not use .so files."
>
>SH: Perhaps you think saying .so files are not standard or used by
>most is equivalent to  "0. Cygwin/Windows do not use .so files."
>Since Cygwin Apache comes with .so files your remark does not
>clarify Chris Faylor's comment, but contradicts it. It is the difference
>between "all" and "most".

I'm sorry for my imprecise language.  Let me clarify.  As you have so
cleverly discovered (after many frantic hours of digging, I'm sure) it
is possible to use other extensions for shared libraries on Windows.
Yes, cygwin does have a couple of packages which do not use the ".dll"
extension for their shared libraries.

Regardless of the *extension* however, the files are still Windows DLLs,
not ELF shared libraries as are found on Linux.  You are obviously
unclear on this and are now, apparently, thrashing about rather
comically trying to wildly move off the topic of your own ignorance.

>>>1. "If you are truly using XFree86 then you're off-topic for this mailing
>>>list. "We don't support XFree86 anymore." Unless you are in charge of 
>>>this
>>>list with the power of refuting the FAQ the use of "we" seems yet another
>>>case of the "we" consisting of an X-man with a mouse in his pocket. 
>>>People
>>>with little qualification habitually use the term "we" to hide their
>>>inexperience. It advertises their feeling of being on insecure ground.
>>
>>Cygwin is a project were many people gather to work together. Those people
>>usually have a very good insight of what is going on. If you want someone
>>speak up who is the head of cygwin then you should ask Chris Faylor. Or
>>you want a word from the Cygwin/X maintainer (thats me)?
>
>I suppose then that you are the best person to mention this to.
>It was Chris Faylor who wrote:
>
>>1. If you are truly using XFree86 then you're off-topic for this mailing
>>  list.  We don't support XFree86 anymore.
>
>That may be, but how am I to know that?

I said that it was so just above after the 1.  Here, let me say it for you
again:

1. If you are truly using XFree86 then you're off-topic for this mailing
   list.  We don't support XFree86 anymore.

Did you see it this time?  I hope so, because I hate to keep repeating
myself.

>The FAQ says:
>
>"Almost anything related to Cygwin is on-topic here.  Please note,
>that this is not a mailing list for the discussion of general Windows
>topics.  There are many many other places for that on the Internet.
>
>Also note, that if you are interested in the Cygwin XFree86 project
>which is porting the XFree86 code to Windows, then the correct
>mailing list for this discussion is [EMAIL PROTECTED] "
>
>SH: I assume then that the FAQ does not need to be amended and
>that Chris Faylor can contradict the FAQ whenever he chooses.

Wow, yeah, if the Cygwin FAQ actually said anything like that it would
be the cause of some confusion.

That is the information you get if you send a command to ezmlm asking
for the FAQ for the cygwin-at-cygwin mailing list.

The real Cygwin FAQ at http://cygwin.com/faq.html doesn't mention
XFree86.

http://cygwin.com/lists.html gets it right.  The FAQ at x.cygwin.com
only mentions XFree86 appropriately.

Nevertheless, I have now eliminated the source of your confusion.  As
embarrassing as it is to admit, I had to ask Igor where in the world
this text came from.  It is particularly embarrassing because I wrote
the words years ago when we were still using XFree86.

>>| We do not support XFree86 for some time now. We changed to Xorg. The
>>| compatibility package is just for applications which use older shared
>>| libraries which are binary incompatible with the current. (But I guess
>>| this is something you figured out yourself with your experience)
>>
>
>I don't think it takes experience to realize the above statement does not
>justify Chris Faylor's statement:
>
>>3. I doubt that anyone knows what "the compatibility file" is.
>>
>
>SH: I didn't identify it as an 'X11 compatibility file'

No, you didn't.  You're correct.  You identified it as "the
compatibility file".  That's why I said "the compatibility file".

>I suppose that requires a tremendous leap of insight when taken in the
>conte

Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin

[Stephen P. Harris]

- Original Message - 
From: "Igor Pechtchanski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin



On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Stephen P. Harris wrote:


- Original Message -
From: "Igor Pechtchanski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


.


> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Stephen P. Harris wrote:
>
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> .
>
> > [snip]
> > SH: So change the FAQ and the name of the mailing list. Why is
> > your sayso tobe considered authoritative and the FAQ dismissed?
> >
> > [snip]
> > 1) You display either ignorance of the FAQ or presume that others
> > should regard your interpretation of the FAQ as superior to that doc.
>
> See .

SH: That may be, but how am I to know that? The FAQ says:



I am going to edit the order of this post a bit to get
to your reply to this question.

Igor wrote: Cygwin users should try reading the mailing list archives to 
see
if any documentation is out of date.  If they don't read the archives, 
they

should not be surprised when FAQ errors are pointed out to them on the
mailing lists.  If they are surprised or offended by the documentation
being out of date, they can return the product for a full refund.



This sounds like a reasonable approach. The new user, accustomed to
finding needed information in FAQs, intuitively recognizes the superior
approach used by Cygwin; read the FAQ, investigate the hierarchy of
Cygwin honchos, make a list of important issues, and cross-index these
issues against the several thousands of post created by these leaders
who exercise a type of papal authority paying particular attention to
the dates of the posts in case somebody with higher authority decides
to establish a new guideline. Yes, quite a reasonable expectation.



No, the point is that the FAQ *does* need to be amended, but
.  Unless someone volunteers their time
to make changes to the FAQ, this isn't going to happen.


SH: Igor, bring up titles does not refute evidence of a written
contradiction in policy. Your point about qualifications does nothing to
rebut my point that the policies are contradictory. Do you think you
make the point that such contradictions are ok, depending on who makes
them?


Yes, precisely.  The point I make is that Chris, by the virtue of being
the project leader, is the ultimate authority on all things Cygwin.  If he
contradicts the FAQ, then the FAQ is wrong.  By contradicting it publicly,
the issue is now on the mailing lists, and there is a chance that someone
will volunteer their time to produce the corrections to the FAQ (which,
BTW, Chris does not maintain).



If Chris is project leader, then ultimately he is responsible for the
consistency of the project. Do you mean there is no specified
FAQ maintainer? Nobody for CFG to direct to this task?

This reflects on the priority assigned to documentation. You appear
to describing a Linux-like apathy for documentation. Did you know
that poor documentation is regarded by most of world as a major
reason Linux has floundered. Eric Raymond's article does not rescue this.

This attitude is going to isolate Cygwin into a virtual game for 
intellectuals.



You are replying to an imaginary issue, his qualifications, rather than
my point which is that the statements are contradictory.


I do not dispute that his statements are contradictory.  What I was trying
to tell you by showing you his qualifications is that if he contradicts
the FAQ, he's most probably right.



That is likely so. But I think it is negligent to expect to expect new users
to research the qualifcations of posters, especially to discover if they
have a privileged status. I suppose we will not agree on this. The long
term members of the list will agree with you, but most others will
adhere to an ethical principle of principles before personalities.


And so on. I do think CFG should not make statements contradictory to
the FAQ, or assume the responsibility of editing the FAQ so that it does
not mislead users; not when you push reading the documentation.


Again, Cygwin is a volunteer-run project.  Until the Cygwin FAQ maintainer
has the time to take CGF's statements and incorporate them into the FAQ,
the FAQ will be out of date.  FAQ updates do happen occasionally, and this
information will likely find its way into the FAQ at some point.  Nobody
knows when.



Oh, there is a Cygwin FAQ maintainer? Why isn't he/she doing their job?
Why doesn't CFG notice this? Your solution is that the newcomer who
was belittled for not being aware of CFG's policy decisions should
volunteer to search the archives and take notes from CFG's posts and
then change the FAQ to be in accordance with them.


Instead of complaining that the FAQ is out of dat

Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Stephen P. Harris wrote:

> - Original Message -
> From: "Igor Pechtchanski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

.

> > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Stephen P. Harris wrote:
> >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > .
> >
> > > [snip]
> > > SH: So change the FAQ and the name of the mailing list. Why is
> > > your sayso tobe considered authoritative and the FAQ dismissed?
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > > 1) You display either ignorance of the FAQ or presume that others
> > > should regard your interpretation of the FAQ as superior to that doc.
> >
> > See .
>
> I suppose this is an appeal to authority type of argument. I criticized
> the fact that the Cygwin FAQ and CGF's statements contradict each other.
> Do you think mentioning his title erases the contradiction?

It's not his title that is in question here.  The Cygwin project is run by
volunteers.  Chris and Corinna and others make their contributions to
Cygwin on their own time.  There is no official support for Cygwin (unless
you buy a Red Hat license).  So it's quite understandable that
documentation is sometimes incomplete, and that other users contribute
support when and to the extent that they are able.

> It was Chris Faylor who wrote:
> "1. If you are truly using XFree86 then you're off-topic for this mailing
> list.  We don't support XFree86 anymore.
>
> SH: That may be, but how am I to know that? The FAQ says:
>
> "Almost anything related to Cygwin is on-topic here.  Please note,
> that this is not a mailing list for the discussion of general Windows
> topics.  There are many many other places for that on the Internet.
>
> Also note, that if you are interested in the Cygwin XFree86 project
> which is porting the XFree86 code to Windows, then the correct
> mailing list for this discussion is [EMAIL PROTECTED] "
>
> SH: I assume then that the FAQ does not need to be amended and
> that Chris Faylor can contradict the FAQ whenever he chooses.

No, the point is that the FAQ *does* need to be amended, but
.  Unless someone volunteers their time
to make changes to the FAQ, this isn't going to happen.

> SH: Igor, bring up titles does not refute evidence of a written
> contradiction in policy. Your point about qualifications does nothing to
> rebut my point that the policies are contradictory. Do you think you
> make the point that such contradictions are ok, depending on who makes
> them?

Yes, precisely.  The point I make is that Chris, by the virtue of being
the project leader, is the ultimate authority on all things Cygwin.  If he
contradicts the FAQ, then the FAQ is wrong.  By contradicting it publicly,
the issue is now on the mailing lists, and there is a chance that someone
will volunteer their time to produce the corrections to the FAQ (which,
BTW, Chris does not maintain).

> You are replying to an imaginary issue, his qualifications, rather than
> my point which is that the statements are contradictory.

I do not dispute that his statements are contradictory.  What I was trying
to tell you by showing you his qualifications is that if he contradicts
the FAQ, he's most probably right.

> And so on. I do think CFG should not make statements contradictory to
> the FAQ, or assume the responsibility of editing the FAQ so that it does
> not mislead users; not when you push reading the documentation.

Again, Cygwin is a volunteer-run project.  Until the Cygwin FAQ maintainer
has the time to take CGF's statements and incorporate them into the FAQ,
the FAQ will be out of date.  FAQ updates do happen occasionally, and this
information will likely find its way into the FAQ at some point.  Nobody
knows when.

Cygwin users should try reading the mailing list archives to see if any
documentation is out of date.  If they don't read the archives, they
should not be surprised when FAQ errors are pointed out to them on the
mailing lists.  If they are surprised or offended by the documentation
being out of date, they can return the product for a full refund.

Instead of complaining that the FAQ is out of date, you can help the cause
by coming up with the proper wording and creating a patch against the FAQ
sources (which are publicly available in CVS).  You don't even need a
copyright assignment for this, IIRC.  It would make the FAQ maintainer's
job much easier, and is likely to bring those particular FAQ entries
up-to-date sooner.  If you are unwilling to do that, you cannot demand
that someone else spend their time doing it.
Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--'  

Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin

[Stephen P. Harris]

- Original Message - 
From: "Igor Pechtchanski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin



On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Stephen P. Harris wrote:


- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


.


[snip]
SH: So change the FAQ and the name of the mailing list. Why is
your sayso tobe considered authoritative and the FAQ dismissed?

[snip]
1) You display either ignorance of the FAQ or presume that others
should regard your interpretation of the FAQ as superior to that doc.


See .



I suppose this is an appeal to authority type of argument. I criticized
the fact that the Cygwin FAQ and CGF's statements contradict
each other. Do you think mentioning his title erases the contradiction?

It was Chris Faylor who wrote:
"1. If you are truly using XFree86 then you're off-topic for this mailing
list.  We don't support XFree86 anymore.

SH: That may be, but how am I to know that? The FAQ says:

"Almost anything related to Cygwin is on-topic here.  Please note,
that this is not a mailing list for the discussion of general Windows
topics.  There are many many other places for that on the Internet.

Also note, that if you are interested in the Cygwin XFree86 project
which is porting the XFree86 code to Windows, then the correct
mailing list for this discussion is [EMAIL PROTECTED] "

SH: I assume then that the FAQ does not need to be amended and
that Chris Faylor can contradict the FAQ whenever he chooses.

SH: Igor, bring up titles does not refute evidence of a written
contradiction in policy. Your point about qualifications does
nothing to rebut my point that the policies are contradictory.
Do you think you make the point that such contradictions are
ok, depending on who makes them? You are replying to an
imaginary issue, his qualifications, rather than my point which
is that the statements are contradictory. And so on. I do think
CFG should not make statements contradictory to the FAQ, 
or assume the responsibility of editing the FAQ so that it does

not mislead users; not when you push reading the documentation.


If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. /DA

Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin

[Stephen P. Harris]

- Original Message - 
From: "Alexander Gottwald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin



Stephen P. Harris wrote:


Also I didn't know .so files were forbidden to Cygwin


They are not forbidden. But standard shared library naming on windows
is .dll and this is used by most cygwin packages.


Chris Faylor wrote:  "0. Cygwin/Windows do not use .so files."

SH: Perhaps you think saying .so files are not standard or used by
most is equivalent to  "0. Cygwin/Windows do not use .so files."
Since Cygwin Apache comes with .so files your remark does not
clarify Chris Faylor's comment, but contradicts it. It is the difference
between "all" and "most".


1. "If you are truly using XFree86 then you're off-topic for this mailing
list. "We don't support XFree86 anymore." Unless you are in charge of 
this

list with the power of refuting the FAQ the use of "we" seems yet another
case of the "we" consisting of an X-man with a mouse in his pocket. 
People

with little qualification habitually use the term "we" to hide their
inexperience. It advertises their feeling of being on insecure ground.


Cygwin is a project were many people gather to work together. Those people
usually have a very good insight of what is going on. If you want someone
speak up who is the head of cygwin then you should ask Chris Faylor. Or
you want a word from the Cygwin/X maintainer (thats me)?



I suppose then that you are the best person to mention this to.
It was Chris Faylor who wrote:


1. If you are truly using XFree86 then you're off-topic for this mailing
  list.  We don't support XFree86 anymore.



That may be, but how am I to know that? The FAQ says:

"Almost anything related to Cygwin is on-topic here.  Please note,
that this is not a mailing list for the discussion of general Windows
topics.  There are many many other places for that on the Internet.

Also note, that if you are interested in the Cygwin XFree86 project
which is porting the XFree86 code to Windows, then the correct
mailing list for this discussion is [EMAIL PROTECTED] "

SH: I assume then that the FAQ does not need to be amended and
that Chris Faylor can contradict the FAQ whenever he chooses.


| We do not support XFree86 for some time now. We changed to Xorg. The
| compatibility package is just for applications which use older shared
| libraries which are binary incompatible with the current. (But I guess
| this is something you figured out yourself with your experience)



I don't think it takes experience to realize the above statement does not
justify Chris Faylor's statement:


3. I doubt that anyone knows what "the compatibility file" is.



SH: I didn't identify it as an 'X11 compatibility file' I suppose that
requires a tremendous leap of insight when taken in the context
of mentioning that I have all the X11 packages. Not _obsolete
"Category X11 XFree86-lib-compat: Cygwin/X 4.2.0 shared libraries."

SH: I don't think it takes an unusual degree of intelligence to realize
that lib-compat stands for library compatibility. I do think it takes
an unusual degree of intelligence to think that understanding is
difficult for someone else, or requires Cygwin experience.


get lost
   ago


Do you mean me or the author of the paragraph you quote below?


| We do not support XFree86 for some time now. We changed to Xorg. The
| compatibility package is just for applications which use older shared
| libraries which are binary incompatible with the current. (But I guess
| this is something you figured out yourself with your experience)


Chris Furman: 3. I doubt that anyone knows what "the compatibility file" is.
There is only one of this type:
"Category X11 XFree86-lib-compat: Cygwin/X 4.2.0 shared libraries."

Chris Furman's post was 90% wrong. It would be very charitable to
merely call it sloppy. He appears to be unacquainted with the FAQ
and the list of download files available in setup.exe. I suppose that is
a qualification for Chris Furman ..."who is the head of cygwin".
Maybe he is like a lot of Department Heads, in charge of funding.
I suppose a benefit is the ability to remove his posts of dubious quality.

CF wrote:  "4. Assuming that a linux shared library will work on Windows
demonstrates that you should not be casting aspersions on people who are
trying to help you because you obviously need a lot of help."

SH: Well, fltk is platform independent so that is a major hurdle passed.

From my level, the ./configure switches passed on were complicated

and required a lot of experience with Cygwin, so I did need a lot of help.
But since the correct syntax and ordering of libraries was sufficient, it
means the assumption flpsed would work under Cygwin was fairly
reasonable and CF questioned that assumption with "demonstrates".

The actual help I received came from Brian Dessent who I wrongfully
maligned (maybe Furman is guilty of no more than dismal sarcasm).
Brian's effort was very cle

Re: OpenGL compatibility with Cygwin/X

[Alexander Gottwald]

Mathieu OUDART wrote:

> Using Xwin_GL
> - glxinfo :
> OpenGL vendor string: Intel
> OpenGL renderer string: Intel Solano
> - glxgears => OK (very fluent)
> - GLUT demo => NO
> GLUT: Fatal Error in (unamed): visual with necessary capabilities
> not found.
> - Tecplot animation => NO (X Protocol error: GLXBadContext)
>
> Using Exceed 3D :
> - Tecplot animation => OK
> - GLUT demo => OK
>
> Does it miss something with my Cygwin/X to get necessary extensions ?

The accelerated OpenGL support does still require some work. Maybe running
a different colordepth can help.

bye
ago
-- 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.gotti.org   ICQ: 126018723

Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Stephen P. Harris wrote:

> - Original Message -
> From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

.

> [snip]
> SH: So change the FAQ and the name of the mailing list. Why is
> your sayso tobe considered authoritative and the FAQ dismissed?
>
> [snip]
> 1) You display either ignorance of the FAQ or presume that others
> should regard your interpretation of the FAQ as superior to that doc.

See .

> [snip]
> 3) Sombody must be in charge of putting files on the download
> list. So I presume there is at least one person besides me who
> would recognize what the the term "compatility file" refers to
> when used in the context of X11 library package files. To me,
> your statement demonstrates your personal lack of knowledge.
>
> [snip]
> Your persistence seems worthy, but your discrimination falls short.
> [snip]
> The problem of the so error message jumped out at you. It didn't need a
> first-level tier help script approach used by technicians of limited
> experience.
>
> Also I didn't know .so files were forbidden to Cygwin since my
> Apache directory is full of them, installed by Cygwin. So from 0)
> your statement "Cygwin/Windows do not use .so files" seems

Cygwin/Windows does not use *Linux* .so files.  Copying a *Linux* .so file
to Cygwin and expecting it to work shows total ignorance of what Cygwin is
and how it works (see the "What isn't Cygwin" section at the top of the
Cygwin web page).

As for the rest of your points, see below.

> [snip]
>
> 1. "If you are truly using XFree86 then you're off-topic for this mailing
> list. "We don't support XFree86 anymore." Unless you are in charge of this
> list with the power of refuting the FAQ the use of "we" seems yet another case
> of the "we" consisting of an X-man with a mouse in his pocket. People with
> little qualification habitually use the term "we" to hide their inexperience.
> It advertises their feeling of being on insecure ground.

As a matter of fact, he *is* in charge.  See .
FYI, Brian Dessent, whose very valid help you so frivolously dismissed as
"first-level tier help script approach", is the maintainer of Cygwin's
apache packages, as well as the Cygwin install program, so he's well aware
of the issues of compiling programs in Cygwin.

> I will be moving on, Stephen

Yes, I think you'd better.
Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. /DA

OpenGL compatibility with Cygwin/X

[Mathieu OUDART]

Hi all,

I use cygwin on my desktop PC (WinXP with graphic controller Intel 82815 
and the latest drivers).


I actually have problems running OpenGL programs like Tecplot or GLUT demos.

Here is a summary of the tests I've made :

Using Xwin :
- glxinfo :
   OpenGL vendor string: Mesa project: www.mesa3d.org
   OpenGL renderer string: Mesa GLX Indirect
- glxgears => OK (slow)
- Tecplot animation => NO (framer error)
- GLUT demo => NO
   GLUT: Fatal Error in (unamed): visual with necessary capabilities 
not found.


Using Xwin_GL
- glxinfo :
   OpenGL vendor string: Intel
   OpenGL renderer string: Intel Solano
- glxgears => OK (very fluent)
- GLUT demo => NO
   GLUT: Fatal Error in (unamed): visual with necessary capabilities 
not found.

- Tecplot animation => NO (X Protocol error: GLXBadContext)

Using Exceed 3D :
- Tecplot animation => OK
- GLUT demo => OK

Does it miss something with my Cygwin/X to get necessary extensions ?

Regards.

--
Mathieu OUDART

Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin

[Alexander Gottwald]

Stephen P. Harris wrote:

> Also I didn't know .so files were forbidden to Cygwin

They are not forbidden. But standard shared library naming on windows
is .dll and this is used by most cygwin packages.

> since my
> Apache directory is full of them, installed by Cygwin. So from 0)
> your statement "Cygwin/Windows do not use .so files" seems
> less than precise, certainly makes it hard for me to generalize to
> "xorg-devel distributes a libX11.dll.a file which should have been
> found by the configure script." I suppose you mean in place of the
> -lx11 reference to libX11.so which seems accurate. From Google:
>
> "Hallo,
> Cygwin changed the naming scheme for X binaries and importlibraries,
> this means the X11 is not found by configure without this change:
>
> diff -Nurd ocaml-3.07beta2~/configure ocaml-3.07beta2/configure
> --- ocaml-3.07beta2~/configure  2003-08-20 17:10:58.0 +0200
> +++ ocaml-3.07beta2/configure   2003-08-29 15:23:24.0 +0200
> @@ -1194,6 +1194,7 @@
>  do
>if test -f $dir/libX11.a || \
>   test -f $dir/libX11.so || \
> + test -f $dir/libX11.dll.a || \
>   test -f $dir/libX11.sa; then
>  if test $dir = /usr/lib; then
>x11_link="-lX11"
> #END

This is just true for a single application which has a broken configure.
Usually configure does not check for specific files but tries to actually
link the libraries. This does work even with the import libraries.

> 1. "If you are truly using XFree86 then you're off-topic for this mailing
> list. "We don't support XFree86 anymore." Unless you are in charge of this
> list with the power of refuting the FAQ the use of "we" seems yet another
> case of the "we" consisting of an X-man with a mouse in his pocket. People
> with little qualification habitually use the term "we" to hide their
> inexperience. It advertises their feeling of being on insecure ground.

Cygwin is a project were many people gather to work together. Those people
usually have a very good insight of what is going on. If you want someone
speak up who is the head of cygwin then you should ask Chris Faylor. Or
you want a word from the Cygwin/X maintainer (thats me)?

| We do not support XFree86 for some time now. We changed to Xorg. The
| compatibility package is just for applications which use older shared
| libraries which are binary incompatible with the current. (But I guess
| this is something you figured out yourself with your experience)

get lost
ago
-- 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.gotti.org   ICQ: 126018723