Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin

["Stephen P. Harris" <Stephen_P_Harris at hotmail dot com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alexander Gottwald" <Alexander.Gottwald@s1999.tu-chemnitz.de>
To: <cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin


> Stephen P. Harris wrote:
>
> > Also I didn't know .so files were forbidden to Cygwin
>
> They are not forbidden. But standard shared library naming on windows
> is .dll and this is used by most cygwin packages.
Chris Faylor wrote:  "0. Cygwin/Windows do not use .so files."

SH: Perhaps you think saying .so files are not standard or used by
most is equivalent to  "0. Cygwin/Windows do not use .so files."
Since Cygwin Apache comes with .so files your remark does not
clarify Chris Faylor's comment, but contradicts it. It is the difference
between "all" and "most".

> > 1. "If you are truly using XFree86 then you're off-topic for this mailing
> > list. "We don't support XFree86 anymore." Unless you are in charge of 
> > this
> > list with the power of refuting the FAQ the use of "we" seems yet another
> > case of the "we" consisting of an X-man with a mouse in his pocket. 
> > People
> > with little qualification habitually use the term "we" to hide their
> > inexperience. It advertises their feeling of being on insecure ground.
>
> Cygwin is a project were many people gather to work together. Those people
> usually have a very good insight of what is going on. If you want someone
> speak up who is the head of cygwin then you should ask Chris Faylor. Or
> you want a word from the Cygwin/X maintainer (thats me)?

I suppose then that you are the best person to mention this to.
It was Chris Faylor who wrote:

> 1. If you are truly using XFree86 then you're off-topic for this mailing
>   list.  We don't support XFree86 anymore.

That may be, but how am I to know that? The FAQ says:

"Almost anything related to Cygwin is on-topic here.  Please note,
that this is not a mailing list for the discussion of general Windows
topics.  There are many many other places for that on the Internet.

Also note, that if you are interested in the Cygwin XFree86 project
which is porting the XFree86 code to Windows, then the correct
mailing list for this discussion is cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com. "

SH: I assume then that the FAQ does not need to be amended and
that Chris Faylor can contradict the FAQ whenever he chooses.

> | We do not support XFree86 for some time now. We changed to Xorg. The
> | compatibility package is just for applications which use older shared
> | libraries which are binary incompatible with the current. (But I guess
> | this is something you figured out yourself with your experience)

I don't think it takes experience to realize the above statement does not
justify Chris Faylor's statement:

> 3. I doubt that anyone knows what "the compatibility file" is.

SH: I didn't identify it as an 'X11 compatibility file' I suppose that
requires a tremendous leap of insight when taken in the context
of mentioning that I have all the X11 packages. Not _obsolete
"Category X11 XFree86-lib-compat: Cygwin/X 4.2.0 shared libraries."

SH: I don't think it takes an unusual degree of intelligence to realize
that lib-compat stands for library compatibility. I do think it takes
an unusual degree of intelligence to think that understanding is
difficult for someone else, or requires Cygwin experience.

> get lost
>        ago

Do you mean me or the author of the paragraph you quote below?

> | We do not support XFree86 for some time now. We changed to Xorg. The
> | compatibility package is just for applications which use older shared
> | libraries which are binary incompatible with the current. (But I guess
> | this is something you figured out yourself with your experience)
Chris Furman: 3. I doubt that anyone knows what "the compatibility file" is.
There is only one of this type:
"Category X11 XFree86-lib-compat: Cygwin/X 4.2.0 shared libraries."

Chris Furman's post was 90% wrong. It would be very charitable to
merely call it sloppy. He appears to be unacquainted with the FAQ
and the list of download files available in setup.exe. I suppose that is
a qualification for Chris Furman ..."who is the head of cygwin".
Maybe he is like a lot of Department Heads, in charge of funding.
I suppose a benefit is the ability to remove his posts of dubious quality.

CF wrote:  "4. Assuming that a linux shared library will work on Windows
demonstrates that you should not be casting aspersions on people who are
trying to help you because you obviously need a lot of help."

SH: Well, fltk is platform independent so that is a major hurdle passed.
> From my level, the ./configure switches passed on were complicated
and required a lot of experience with Cygwin, so I did need a lot of help.
But since the correct syntax and ordering of libraries was sufficient, it
means the assumption flpsed would work under Cygwin was fairly
reasonable and CF questioned that assumption with "demonstrates".

The actual help I received came from Brian Dessent who I wrongfully
maligned (maybe Furman is guilty of no more than dismal sarcasm).
Brian's effort was very clever and I also appreciate the package
installment method used for setup.exe (no matter who gets credit).

I added an "fi",
Stephen





> --
> Alexander.Gottwald@s1999.tu-chemnitz.de
> http://www.gotti.org           ICQ: 126018723