This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: new cygwin package: cgoban


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 (spelling intentional) I'm
> in.


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).

Now, if you want to distinguish between, say, and XEmacs that is built 
using native MS windowing only (which should go into --prefix=/usr) and 
an XEmacs built using X11 windowing (which, depending on how this 
discussion ends, MIGHT go into --prefix=/usr/X11R6), then that's a 
different issue.

However, even in that case, I'm not sure I agree with you.  Suppose 
there WERE two tentative "XEmacs" packages.  Should a user be able to 
install both at the same time?  Then he would be duplicating all 50Meg 
of the elisp code -- which is identical -- in /usr/share/xemacs/ and 
/usr/X11R6/share/xemacs/.  The two packages would have to have different 
names -- XEmacs-MS- and XEmacs-X- ?  Or should these two packages be 
coordinated -- XEmacs-MS- (which contains binary and libs), XEmacs-X 
(ditto), and a separate XEmacs-elisp (which both use, and installs the 
50M of elisp into --prefix=/usr.)   But in that case, the XEmacs-X 
package isn't really "--prefix=/usr/X11R6" -- it's "--prefix=/usr 
--bindir=/usr/X11R6/bin --libdir=/usr/X11R6/lib".  This is a messy issue.

Basically, what I am getting at is you are raising a whole nother can of 
worms: (1) programs that can exist in EITHER "native" or "X" forms. 
That is a different issue than (2) programs which are simultaneously, 
within the same binary, BOTH "native" and "X" (e.g. your rxvt example) 
and it is a different issue than (3) programs that exist ONLY in "X" form.

Let's limit this discussion to group (3), okay?

On group (1), anybody want to check how Red Hat separates/enables 
coexistence of packages that are either X or SVGAlib, and take that to a 
different thread?  We already know that (group 3) almost all X programs 
(with very few exceptions) go into --prefix=/usr on RHL.

--Chuck


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]