Charles Wilson wrote:
(*) counter argument: gtk+ on cygwin currently uses X. However, the
code is THERE to use native MS windowing -- because there is a native MS
port (on a separate CVS branch). It might be possible, some time in the
future, to have TWO different gtk+ builds on cygwin:
Earnie Boyd wrote:
(*) counter argument: gtk+ on cygwin currently uses X. However, the
code is THERE to use native MS windowing -- because there is a native MS
port (on a separate CVS branch). It might be possible, some time in the
future, to have TWO different gtk+ builds on cygwin: and X one
Get a new setup.exe from http://www.cygwin.com/setup.exe.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Teun Burgers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 5:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: new cygwin package: cgoban
I see the original message has led
to quite some
Robert Collins wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 5:04 AM
Volker Zell agreed. Nobody else responded. I kinda like it, but FHS
has moved away from that; now on Red Hat systems it appears that ONLY
those
Earnie Boyd wrote:
I see it's time for me to chime in. We the cygwin-apps developers must
insist that all X11 packages use --prefix=/usr/X11R6 because it's possible
for an X11 package to be both Win32 and X11, E.G.: rxvt. And I the user
could want to use either depending on the moode
Charles Wilson wrote:
Earnie Boyd wrote:
I see it's time for me to chime in. We the cygwin-apps developers must
insist that all X11 packages use --prefix=/usr/X11R6 because it's possible
for an X11 package to be both Win32 and X11, E.G.: rxvt. And I the user
could want to use either
Earnie Boyd wrote:
Bad example, Earnie. The current rxvt package is, itself, in a
single binary, BOTH Win32 AND X11. It is fine right where it is
(--prefix=/usr).
No, it's a good example. And you're correct the existing rxvt
package is fine right where it is. It's the one that
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 11:46:33AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 07:49:49PM +0200, Teun Burgers wrote:
Hello,
I've uploaded binary and source packages of cgoban,
homepage kgs.kiseido.com/~wms/comp/cgoban/
These are the URL's of binary and source tarballs:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
This wasn't entirely correct. The package name for XFree86-base
was Xfree86-base. Also, I would prefer if packages that relied
on X were put in the XFree86 hierarchy.
Also, Trevor Forbes suggested that X-dependent programs should be
compiled using
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 1:33 AM
This wasn't entirely correct. The package name for
XFree86-base was Xfree86-base.
Setup is case-insensitive, so while there is a visual discrepancy, setup
will be
-Original Message-
From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 5:04 AM
Volker Zell agreed. Nobody else responded. I kinda like it, but FHS
has moved away from that; now on Red Hat systems it appears that ONLY
those programs specifically part
Be sure to read the p.s. ...
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 03:04:04PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
Similarly, I don't like the restriction that all 'X'-based packages go
under XFree86/ on sourceware. We don't put inetutils underneath
ncurses/. We don't put openssh
12 matches
Mail list logo
