On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 04:07:58PM +0100, Ariel Burbaickij wrote:
Yes, I am highly interested in native tcl/tk and native expect/expectk
for cygwin, I need it, for example, for android. As I have seen it,
application expectk.exe was sucessfully built by Jean-Sebastien. So my
question is where
Yes, I am highly interested in native tcl/tk and native expect/expectk
for cygwin,
I need it, for example, for android. As I have seen it, application expectk.exe
was sucessfully built by Jean-Sebastien. So my question is where and how
I can get source files and Makefiles in order to build expectk
On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 03:46:45AM -0400, Jean-Sebastien Trottier wrote:
I like the third option... I'm not going to use gdb as much as Chris
so I think he is in a better position to maintain it.
However, I agree to take care of cutting the first stable gdb +
Cygwin, W11 Tcl/Tk version.
I would
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 05:02:32PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Trottier wrote:
I would say that what we already have is:
Tcl/Tk: half-Windows/half-Cygwin, GDI
Err...ok. If by this you mean
tcl: cygwin (no GUI), but it doesn't do cygwin paths correctly in all
Jean-Sebastien Trottier writes:
Hi All (and Chris in particular),
I've already been successful in getting the following to compile as
native Cygwin packages with minimal patches:
Tcl v8.4.7 (without registry and DDE)
Tk v8.4.7
Itcl v3.2.1 with Iwidgets
Jean-Sebastien schrieb:
Of course, I don't mind becoming maintainer for these packages...
I just want to know if there's actual interest for this, or else I'll
stop wasting my time...
Let me know what you think.
Yes, +1 from me. There are packages out there depending on Cygwin and
non
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 10:09:28AM +0200, Dr. Volker Zell wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Trottier writes:
Hi All (and Chris in particular),
I've already been successful in getting the following to compile as
native Cygwin packages with minimal patches:
Tcl v8.4.7 (without
On Oct 15 09:31, Jean-Sebastien Trottier wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 01:06:10PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Jean-Sebastien schrieb:
Of course, I don't mind becoming maintainer for these packages...
I just want to know if there's actual interest for this, or else I'll
stop
In the interests of clarity, let's agree on some terminology:
a cygwin version --
uses the cygwin1.dll for runtime services (like printf etc)
a native windows version
uses msvcrt.dll for runtime services
an X version
uses xlib calls to draw stuff on a display
this requires a xserver of
Charles Wilson wrote:
Using these terms, what we already have is
cygwin, GDI
ActiveState provides a
native, GDI
What is being proposed is
cygwin, X
Note that tcl and itcl do not, themselves, do any display-oriented
processing. So GDI vs. X is meaningless for them. They could be
released
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 01:35:16PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
In the interests of clarity, let's agree on some terminology:
a cygwin version --
uses the cygwin1.dll for runtime services (like printf etc)
a native windows version
uses msvcrt.dll for runtime services
an X version
Jean-Sebastien Trottier wrote:
I would say that what we already have is:
Tcl/Tk: half-Windows/half-Cygwin, GDI
Err...ok. If by this you mean
tcl: cygwin (no GUI), but it doesn't do cygwin paths correctly in all
cases
tk: cygwin, X11
As you can see above, the current Tcl version uses
Hi All (and Chris in particular),
The current Tcl and Tk packages are not native Cygwin apps but a mix
of UNIX and Windows flavors... are there any good reasons to keep it
this way?
Apart from getting Tk to work without X, I don't see any... If you want
Tk for Windows, might as well get it from
13 matches
Mail list logo
