Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <000801c03159$9bfeeec0$92d698d1@shellware.com> From: shell AT shellware DOT com (Shell M. Shrader) To: "Jeff" Cc: References: <20001005141101 DOT C20946 AT cygnus DOT com> <0s635gtMCtrU092yn AT cinenet DOT net> <8096-Sun08Oct2000100240+0100-starksb AT ebi DOT ac DOT uk> <6wK45gtMCNwB092yn AT cinenet DOT net> Subject: Re: Building C-Kermit (6.0.192) with Cygwin 1.1 Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:57:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 What ever happened to Zmodem? Didn't gsz provide a gnu port? Shell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff" Newsgroups: lists.cygwin To: Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 1:17 PM Subject: Re: Building C-Kermit (6.0.192) with Cygwin 1.1 > As seen from lists.cygwin, on > Sun, 8 Oct 2000 10:02:40 +0100, > David Starks-Browning 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 > -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com