Chuck,
I do consider this thread is closed, but,
[...]
> > ftp://ftp.nanotech.wisc.edu/pub/khan/tcl/tcltk-8.3.4-cygwin/
> >
[...]
[...]
>
> But that tk is X-based, isn't it? There is no way that the default
[...]
just for the records: it's not.
SLao
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more ht
No, it is windows based.
-Bill
At 11:39 PM 1/29/2003 -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>William A. Hoffman wrote:
>
>>There is a complete tcl that can be found here:
>>ftp://ftp.nanotech.wisc.edu/pub/khan/tcl/tcltk-8.3.4-cygwin/
>>It would be great if this was used. It is a complete tcl that works
William A. Hoffman wrote:
There is a complete tcl that can be found here:
ftp://ftp.nanotech.wisc.edu/pub/khan/tcl/tcltk-8.3.4-cygwin/
It would be great if this was used. It is a complete tcl that works under cygwin.
But that tk is X-based, isn't it? There is no way that the default
cygwin
Chuck,
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 08:54:19PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Charles Wilson wrote:
> /usr/lib/libtcl8.3.a -> libcygtcl83.a
>
> I forgot to mention, I created the libtcl8.3.a file as a symlink;
The above will no longer be necessary for Python 2.3. Plus, the "cyg"
prefixes has been re
>
>
>As far as the libraries for tcl, I dunno. That's a decision made by the tcl/tk folks
>over on the insight list. For the record, I have these in my /usr/lib dir:
>/usr/lib/libcygitcl32.a
>/usr/lib/libcygtcl83.a
>/usr/lib/libtcl8.3.a <<<--
>/usr/lib/libcygitclstub32.a
>/usr/lib/
Charles Wilson wrote:
tcl/tk folks over on the insight list. For the record, I have these in
my /usr/lib dir:
/usr/lib/libcygitcl32.a
/usr/lib/libcygtcl83.a
/usr/lib/libtcl8.3.a <<<--
/usr/lib/libcygitclstub32.a
/usr/lib/libcygtclstub83.a
/usr/lib/tclConfig.sh
/usr/lib/libtcl8.3
Peter A. Castro wrote:
If that is NOT what you are suggestion -- e.g. that only tclsh83 should
be renamed -- why? Why is tclsh83 special?
By that same token, why do the tcl libraries have "cyg" in their name?
Eg: libtcl83.a is named libcygtcl83.a. Why? It's still tcl. Why are the
libraries
If this was REALLY a full tclsh83.exe, I would have less of a problem with it.
However, this is some small sub-set of tclsh83 that replaces a FULL cygtclsh80.exe.
Perhaps this one should be called cyg-gdb-tclsh.If you have programs like cmake
or configure scripts that look for tclsh, they find
[...]
> If that is NOT what you are suggestion -- e.g. that only tclsh83 should
> be renamed -- why? Why is tclsh83 special?
[...]
[cough, ough!]
Yes, yes, why?! Why is it the one and only cygwin app (except the specific
applications, e.g. cygcheck, cygpath) that cannot do a "$ /bin/tclsh83.exe
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
> William A. Hoffman wrote:
> > I recently ran setup, and one of the new packages, I think gdb, caused
> > a tclsh83.exe to be installed into /usr/bin. It would be nice if
> > this were a full working tclsh83.exe, but it is not.However, it conflicte
William A. Hoffman wrote:
I recently ran setup, and one of the new packages, I think gdb, caused
a tclsh83.exe to be installed into /usr/bin. It would be nice if
this were a full working tclsh83.exe, but it is not.However, it conflicted
with the working tclsh83.exe I already had in my path.
11 matches
Mail list logo
