RFC - a few packages

Charles Wilson cwilson@ece.gatech.edu
Sun Nov 11 13:30:00 GMT 2001

popt is already part of the standard dist.  I am its current maintainer, 
but have no objections if you want to take it over.


Gareth Pearce wrote:

> Hi
> I sort of had the idea that the set of packages that are
> a) in debian main - required/important/standard
> b) capable to port at current time
> c) not debian specific at all
> are likely to be acceptable ...
> Is this a fair assessment?
> I am just trying to build up a list of packages to port in my spare time and
> this seems like an effective way of getting a list.
> To start with I am part way through porting (part way mainly because I am
> inexperience with shared librarys so am unsure if the shared libraries i
> have made so far are very good - also my builds currently depend on some
> changes to cygwin which I have posted to cygwin-patchs - or mentioned on
> cygwin ... but otherwise havent gone very far yet.)
> slang
> libpopt
> newt
> whiptail
> are these reasonable?
> While I am at it ...
> My slang port seems reasonable except for one thing.  The 'special'
> characters it uses for borders of windows etc are all ugly, like when you
> take ascii art and try to open it in windows - because all the line draw
> chacters from the character set have been replaced with umlautised
> characters and stuff.  Any suggestions on how best to deal with this? (ie is
> there anyway to change the character-set - or should i just hack the list to
> find best matches available from the windows character set that is default).
> Hmm one last question - 'versioned' dll's ... is there some standard for
> naming them ... because they cant be numbered after dll ... like with so.
> Regards,
> Gareth

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list