RE: Problem and Fix: Missing cygncurses5.dll...

["Harold Hunt" <huntharo at msu dot edu>]

Chuck,

Would you advise that Cygwin/XFree86 make a new binary release the depends
on cygncurses6.dll rather than cygncurses5.dll?

Harold

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-xfree-owner@sources.redhat.com
> [mailto:cygwin-xfree-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of Charles
> Wilson
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 4:31 PM
> To: cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com
> Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: Problem and Fix: Missing cygncurses5.dll...
>
>
> <flame on>
>
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 01:47:20PM -0500, Wayne Willcox wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 02:44:54PM -0400, Thomas Chadwick wrote:
> >>
> >>>Problem Synopsis:
> >>>
> >>>After updating my existing Cygwin/Xfree86 install with Cygwin's
> >>>Setup.exe, I launched XFree86 and tried to bring up an xterm.  However,
> >>>I got an error that said, to the effect, "cannot find
> cygncurses5.dll".
> >>>A little poking around made it apparent that the "upgrade"
>
>
> Oh yeah -- gotta love those sarcasm quotation marks.  Yeah, I spent
> several hours -- actually most of a weekend -- creating the new
> package(s).  I solicited comments before and after from the cygwin-apps
> list for several weeks.  I did all this so that I could break your
> installation with a faux "upgrade".
>
> It's not an "upgrade".  It is an *upgrade*.  Most of the improvements
> are not user-visible -- but are incremental towards getting ncurses to
> build *as a dll* OOB.  The previous version differed from the official
> release by a 550k patch.  This one by only 50k.  Better, no?  The FSF
> people might actually accept this patch...
>
> >>>>blew away the
> >>>file /bin/cygncurses5.dll and replaced it with /bin/cygncurses6.dll,
> >>>hence breaking the xterm build.
> >>>
> >>>Problem Fix/Work-Around:
> >>>
> >>>I found that by simply copying /bin/cygncurses6.dll to
>
>
> Funny, somebody else already suggesting your workaround, and was told
> (by me) that it was the WRONG thing to do.
>
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2001-10/msg00589.html
>
> Do you honestly think the ncurses maintainer (that is, me) changed the
> DLL name on a whim?  That if only I had been thinking, I wouldn't have
> done that -- and thus the correct fix is to rename it back?
>
> It actually took affirmative effort to change the dll name from ...5 to
> ...6 -- surely the maintainer (i.e. me) wouldn't do extra work if there
> wasn't a good reason...
>
> >>>
> >>could you have used a sym link... I would think so.
> >>
>
>
> No.  *Windows* searches for DLL's.  *Windows* doesn't understand cygwin
> symlinks (okay, it sorta does now that they are shortcuts -- but the
> windows DLL loader won't follow shortcuts).
>
> Besides, the right thing to do is NOT to trick windows into loading the
> cygncurses6.dll instead of the 5.dll it wants.  6 and 5 are *different*.
>
> Note: this is the last time I will respond to any message on this
> "problem".
>
> --Chuck
>