Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <3CD428C7.8000206@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 14:30:31 -0400
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Earnie Boyd <Cygwin-Apps AT cygwin DOT com>
CC: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
Subject: Re: new cygwin package: cgoban
References: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5FB0 AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au> <3CD3DD22 DOT 76BD5C0 AT yahoo DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Earnie Boyd wrote:


> I see it's time for me to chime in.  We the cygwin-apps developers must
> insist that all X11 packages use --prefix=/usr/X11R6 because it's possible
> for an X11 package to be both Win32 and X11, E.G.: rxvt.  And I the user
> could want to use either depending on the moode (spelling intentional) I'm
> in.


Bad example, Earnie.  The current rxvt package is, itself, in a single 
binary, BOTH Win32 AND X11.  It is fine right where it is (--prefix=/usr).

Now, if you want to distinguish between, say, and XEmacs that is built 
using native MS windowing only (which should go into --prefix=/usr) and 
an XEmacs built using X11 windowing (which, depending on how this 
discussion ends, MIGHT go into --prefix=/usr/X11R6), then that's a 
different issue.

However, even in that case, I'm not sure I agree with you.  Suppose 
there WERE two tentative "XEmacs" packages.  Should a user be able to 
install both at the same time?  Then he would be duplicating all 50Meg 
of the elisp code -- which is identical -- in /usr/share/xemacs/ and 
/usr/X11R6/share/xemacs/.  The two packages would have to have different 
names -- XEmacs-MS- and XEmacs-X- ?  Or should these two packages be 
coordinated -- XEmacs-MS- (which contains binary and libs), XEmacs-X 
(ditto), and a separate XEmacs-elisp (which both use, and installs the 
50M of elisp into --prefix=/usr.)   But in that case, the XEmacs-X 
package isn't really "--prefix=/usr/X11R6" -- it's "--prefix=/usr 
--bindir=/usr/X11R6/bin --libdir=/usr/X11R6/lib".  This is a messy issue.

Basically, what I am getting at is you are raising a whole nother can of 
worms: (1) programs that can exist in EITHER "native" or "X" forms. 
That is a different issue than (2) programs which are simultaneously, 
within the same binary, BOTH "native" and "X" (e.g. your rxvt example) 
and it is a different issue than (3) programs that exist ONLY in "X" form.

Let's limit this discussion to group (3), okay?

On group (1), anybody want to check how Red Hat separates/enables 
coexistence of packages that are either X or SVGAlib, and take that to a 
different thread?  We already know that (group 3) almost all X programs 
(with very few exceptions) go into --prefix=/usr on RHL.

--Chuck