Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/09/17/15:10:11
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 01:48:05PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 03:03:16PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >>This is an ABI change, requiring the DLL number to be bumped, and apps
> >>to be recompiled. (e.g. we now have cygncurses6.dll, etc)
> > Somehow I don't like the `6' here for a ncurses-5.2 version but
> > if we can't avoid that...
> Well, remember that library version != package version, esp. according
> to the libtool guys. It's only a misunderstanding of this
Oerks, it's ok. I shouldn't have complained...
> >>b) the new libncurses5 package? (should I just put the old DLLs inside
> >>ncurses-5.2-6 package? should the new DLL's themselves be split from
> >>the ncurses package and put in libncurses6 package?) What about the
> >>source code naming difference (libncurses5 != ncurses)?
> > Splitting is ok but what about just naming the file `ncurses5-5.2-1'?
> > The package would be nearer to the other ncurses package in setup's
> > package dialog.
> No objections here -- but Red Hat doesn't do it that way (nor does any
> other RPM-based distro). Don't we want to be like Red Hat?
I can't see a reason to follow like sheeps. We have our own
packaging scheme which we decide about. Each Linux distro
uses a different layout and we don't even have a Linux distro...
> >>c) splitting the terminfo package (and forking the source code) For:
> >>allows me to update the terminfo database more frequently and easier.
> >>Against: forking is bad.
> > Forking is good here.
> Note that Red Ha[snip]
> > Q: If I have installed the new ncurses package and I want to
> > rebuild e.g. tcsh, do I have to change my Makefile? Do I have
> > to change anything?
> Nope. It *should* "just work".
That sounds promising. :-)
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.
- Raw text -