HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)

[Charles Wilson]

Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
> Charles Wilson wrote:
>>> But after 5 years, I think we can get rid of it.
>>>
>>> BTW, my version of sxpm DOES use my cygXpm-X4.dll; without using 
>>> libW11 or something similar, sxpm can't work in non-X mode.  I'll 
>>> just remove it from xpm-nox.  cxpm uses noX, so I'll rename my 
>>> version as you suggested.
>>
>> Test version xpm-nox-4.2.0-5 is up on sourceware, with the following 
>> filelist:
> 
> cxpm is only dependent on cygwin, so I wonder if even this is necessary.

Err...sortof.  It's true that cxpm doesn't link against any *xpm* DLL. 
That's because it directly includes various .o's from the libXpm/lib 
when linking.

So, cxpm-nox uses *different* xpm code than cxpm-x does: in fact, 
cxpm-nox exercises the code inside cygXpm-noX4.dll (it just has its own 
copy of that binary code), while cxpm(-x) exercises its own copy of the 
code inside cygXpm-4.dll.

So, there really should be two different versions of cxpm -- 'cause they 
are different.

>  Right now I have cxpm and sxpm in the same package, but it wouldn't be 
> a big deal to separate them, so that cxpm can be installed without 
> pulling in sxpm's dependencies (8 X11 libraries).

No, I think you should leave it as is. Your 'cxpm.exe' and 'sxpm.exe' 
should be the official ones; my cxpm-noX is just a "hey, cygXpm-noX4.dll 
kinda works maybe" indicator.

> Otherwise, this looks good.  Thank you for taking care of this.

Sure -- now I just need to redo some of my pending ITPs. <g>

--
Chuck