Re: two differents version of unctrl.h, one in cygwin-1.1.7 and one in ncurses-5.2

[Mumit Khan <khan at NanoTech dot Wisc dot EDU>]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> In this case, I'm not sure exactly why newlib has a unctrl.h file, though.
> I'm willing to use the ncurses version instead if that is the consensus.
> The ncurses layout on my linux system seems to be different than cygwin
> though so I don't see a clear correspondence.

Newlib has a bunch of stuff thrown in that may be there just for
historical reasons, or to support certain targets. I don't see any
other reason for newlib to contain unctrl. I have yet to see a non-
curses program include unctrl.h, but of course someone must've done
it for it to be included in newlib. Is there a problem in ncurses
one overwriting the newlib one? I can't see it offhand, but that's
untested. 

Linux does use a slightly different layout (and it varies among the
various flavors of Linux!), and a lot of that has to do with history 
as well. Historically, all the ncurses includes only went to 
$prefix/include/ncurses/; later on these include files were also 
symlink'd in $prefix/include directory so that configuration utilities 
could find curses.h without having to look in ncurses/curses.h. At
least true for a few of the more prevalent Linux distributions.

If there's a difference in Linux layout and what ncurses does out of the
box, I'd be more comfortable in using a ncurses-directed layout simply
to avoid gratuitous incompatibility. Lots of other systems use ncurses 
as well, and configuration utilities have no problem finding the right 
headers/libs.

Regards,
Mumit



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple