Re: Cygwin, tcl/tk, and "native" [Was: Re: Interest in "native" Tcl/Tk/Expect/Itcl/...packages?]

[Charles Wilson <cygwin at cwilson dot fastmail dot fm>]

Jean-Sebastien Trottier wrote:

> I would say that what we already have is:
>     Tcl/Tk: half-Windows/half-Cygwin, GDI

Err...ok.  If by this you mean

  tcl: cygwin (no GUI), but it doesn't do cygwin paths correctly in all 
cases
  tk:  cygwin, X11

> As you can see above, the current Tcl version uses windows APIs to
> access the filesystem. So, I would consider it as a mixed
> half-Windows/half-Cygwin version...
>
> Thus, I would say the Tk GUI is not the only problem in the current
> version...

Granted, given your examples.

> > Contrary to Jean-Sebastien Trottier's assertion, replacing the current 
> > "cygwin, GDI" implementation with the "native, GDI" ActiveState version 
> > will NOT satisfy the current requirements of insight/gdb and other 
> > existing cygwin packages.
>
>
> I never (did|meant to) "assert" that people should switch to using
> ActiveState's Tcl.

Err...what was this, then: "Apart from getting Tk to work without X, I 
don't see any... If you want Tk for Windows, might as well get it from 
ActiveState."

To me, that says: there is no need for non-X tk on cygwin.  If you want 
non-X, what you really want is windows (GDI).  So go get ActiveStates'. 
 My point is that THAT is not true, given the distinction between 
windowsGDI and windowsRUNTIME.  If I misunderstood your point, I apologize.

> Although (I think) it would be possible to have 2 Tk DLL's ("Cygwin, X"
> vs "Cygwin, GDI"), I like Charles Wilson's idea to try and use W11:

Not my idea -- it was Igor's. ('tis a good one, tho, if you can make it 
work.)  However, SteveO packages libW11 together with rxvt; it is not a 
separate package. (and his build technique to get it to work 
is...unique) So, if you need to add stuff to libW11 and need specific 
header files, there may be issues.  You'll need to work with SteveO and 
perhaps split libW11 to a separate project and package.

>     On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:22:02 -0400 (EDT), Charles Wilson wrote:
>     > Rxvt already does this.  Do tk/itk make GDI calls that aren't
>     > covered by rxvt's W11 library?  If so, wouldn't a more worthwhile
>     > investment of effort be to extend the W11 library with the
>     > implementation of the appropriate X11 calls (by plundering the
>     > tk/itk GDI implementation as needed), and then use the W11 library
>     > in the same way as rxvt does.
>
> So, let's extend the terminology:
>
> a "Cygwin, W11" version
>     uses xlib calls to draw stuff on a display using the W11 library
>     this works with or without a xserver running
>
> With this "Cygwin, W11" Tk version, this would cover the insight/gdb
> requirements without the need for 2 distinct Tk DLL's or majorly hacking
> the code.
>
> I will try and have a proof of concept working ASAP...

Cool!

BTW, I interpret cgf's statement

"If someone wants to take over gdb + tcl/tk maintainership that's fine, 
though.  That is gold-star worthy."

to mean that cgf is willing to relinquish maintaining gdb/insight AND 
tcl/tk -- but not just tcl/tk alone.  It's a package deal; you'd need to 
accept gdb maintainership too.  Is that a correct interpretation, cgf, 
or is there a third choice: you'd give up maintaining tcl/tk but 
continue maintaining gdb SO LONG AS the tcl/tk maintainer's changes 
don't force you to do more than minimal work to keep gdb up-to-snuff?

--
Chuck