On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Tom Russo wrote: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 01:08:05PM -0800, we recorded a bogon-computron > collision of the <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> flavor, containing: > > > > KD7NM brought up to me today that the configure test for "gv" > > complains about X11 if there's no X11 running on Cygwin at the time. > > I believe Tom mentioned this or a similar thing to me before as > > well. > > > > What would be a good direction to go in this case? Should we test > > again for just the presence of the file if it fails the first test? > > I'd hate to toss out the print customization options just because > > someone configured without X11 running. > > Well, the main problem is that we need to actually *run* gv to see what > version it is in order to determine what sort of options to pass to it (they > changed them dramatically a couple years ago, and old options are no longer > recognized). And "gv --version" tries to connect to the X server even though > it has no intention of putting up any windows. > > Unless we're going to drop support for the old style GV options (potentially > shutting some folks out who haven't upgraded in years), we'll need to run > gv --version in order to figure the version out. You could, of course, > always do something like "test for existence of gv, then run it to test > version, and if it doesn't run assume it's the new version" or something like > that.
I've had to jump through stupid hoops like this to get silent installs of <cough> "certain unamed COTS products" to work from a command line. fwiw: crozet:~$ strings `which gv` |grep GV.version: GV.version: gv 3.5.8 -- Dan Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Xastir-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xastir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xastir-dev
