Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
From: darkmoon AT cinenet DOT net (Jeff)
Newsgroups: lists.cygwin
To: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: Building C-Kermit (6.0.192) with Cygwin 1.1
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 10:17:46 -0700
Organization: Less and less each day..
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <6wK45gtMCNwB092yn@cinenet.net>
References: <L8L35gtMC1zf092yn AT cinenet DOT net> <20001005141101 DOT C20946 AT cygnus DOT com>
 <0s635gtMCtrU092yn AT cinenet DOT net>
 <8096-Sun08Oct2000100240+0100-starksb AT ebi DOT ac DOT uk>
Lines: 55

As seen from lists.cygwin, on
Sun,  8 Oct 2000 10:02:40 +0100,
David Starks-Browning <starksb AT ebi DOT ac DOT uk> wrote:

>Kermit ... now there's a blast from the past!

Not from *my* past! :)  The current enhanced kermit protocol, when
tuned for speed, is as fast as your serial connection, and is robust
enough to get files though bad connections when other modem protocols
give up and die.  Kermit software is well written, thoroughly tested,
and totally supported by the developers.  As long as it stays that way,
I'll keep using it. :)

>On Saturday 7 Oct 00, Jeff writes:
>> So, I'm back to my original question:  Which of the makefile targets
>> work best?  When presented with a package that has very system-specific
>> targets, which is best?  Which flavor of Unix does Cygwin most
>> resemble?  Linux?  FreeBSD?  Or maybe a more general target, if
>> available, such as BSD or System5R4?  Or-?  C-Kermit has never failed
>> to build and run "straight out of the box" when it was obvious which
>> makefile target to use.
>
>Jeff, I think your best bet is to get the Kermit folks to figure this
>out.  

A very good suggestion-- I have already posted in
comp.protocols.kermit.misc, where I am hoping the developers may
respond sometime this week.

>      Aside from that, you'll just have to experiment and deal with
>the differences yourself.

I've tried some experimentation but, with my limited knowledge, this package
is far too complex for me to be able to figure out what to do.  As
usual, I first searched the net before posting.  I tried deja.com, the
archives for this list, the Cygwin website, and a general web search. 
The last turned up a mailing list post where the author described how,
after switching to UWIN, he was able to build Kermit "straight out of
the box" with a slight mod to the linux target 9his makefile entry
fails on Cygwin, however).  Nothing else turned up.

>                   Unless someone has solved this very problem
>already on this list (unlikely since nobody has confessed as much),
>nobody is going to go to this trouble for you.

I wouldn't expect anyone on this list to work out the particuars for
me if they weren't planning to build Kermit for themselves also.  I
also expect that I will want to build other packages with Cygwin that
may require selecting makefile targets for specific systems.  That is
why I asked the above question in more general terms.  I would *still*
like to know which flavor of Unix Cygwin is based on, most closely
resembles, etc.!

Jeff


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com