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

Jean-Sebastien Trottier jst1@email.com
Sat Oct 16 07:47:00 GMT 2004


On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 05:02:32PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> 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

You're right about the Tcl path issue... but I said we already have
"GDI", not "X11", for Tk.

You did also snip the piece that said "Read on..." Which basically meant
"let me explain in greater boring details..."

> [...snip...]

> >>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.

I guess I wasn't clear then... I was referring to the fact that with
Tcl's current path issue and Tk using GDI, it's not very far from
ActiveState's version.

But enough of that...

> >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.

Sorry for misquoting... I keep notes to track who said what... sometimes
I copy/paste the wrong thing/person... My bad.

I've studied the rxvt/W11 source... the only "unique build technique" I
can find in there is the "fake" libX11.a wrapper.

Linking my cygtk8.4.dll against it uncovers 50 unresolved functions...
So, there will be substantial work involved to expand W11 to support
these 50 new functions. Will take some time, but I'm up to the challenge!

Maybe SteveO can lend some time...?


> [...snip...]

> 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?

I like the third option... I'm not going to use gdb as much as Chris so
I think he is in a better position to maintain it.

However, I agree to take care of cutting the first stable gdb +
"Cygwin, W11" Tcl/Tk version.

I would also agree to co-maintain gdb with Chris and to fix any
Tcl/Tk-related issues.

As for fully taking over maintenance of gdb, I'm not totally against it
but I guess we could discuss the details later...

Cheers,
Sebastien



More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list