On 2/8/2012 9:14 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 23:51 +0100, marco atzeri wrote: >> curiosity, any reason why the tcl/tk dll's are >> not using the cyg prefix ? > > In fact, there is. The point of the "cyg" prefix is to avoid possible > mismatches with MinGW DLLs using the "lib" prefix. In this case, > however, forcing a "cyg" prefix with Tcl's unique build system would be > a lot of work for no gain, since Tcl already has its own way of > distinguishing between the two (tclXY.dll vs. libtclX.Y.dll). Note that > python and R (in Ports) do the same thing for the same reason.
Sadly, for the (in progress) cygwin-fork-that-shall-not-be-named version of tcl/tk, I have to do this, because to be a good citizen I have to avoid conflicting with cygwin's DLLs (libfooX.Y.dll) and 'native' DLLs (fooXY.dll). Thus, I've already developed all the necessary patches to make this work -- and the changes, incl. those to the in-tcl build system for TEA extensions, are not that difficult. However, if cygwin's tcl/tk packages were to *now* adopt such a patch, then it would cause no end of back-compatibility issues and Yet Another Recompile Of All Clients. And that's a Heaping Plateful of Pain, for no real benefit. So, for once, I actually agree with Yaakov on one of these issues -- which is why I never mentioned the existence of my patch prior to the Big Tcl/Tk Transition. -- Chuck -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
