From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26006 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2011 23:35:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 25743 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Oct 2011 23:35:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nm21-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (HELO nm21-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (66.94.236.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:34:51 +0000 Received: from [66.94.237.195] by nm21.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Oct 2011 23:34:51 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.118] by tm6.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Oct 2011 23:34:51 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1023.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Oct 2011 23:34:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 72593 invoked from network); 26 Oct 2011 23:34:50 -0000 X-Yahoo-SMTP: jenXL62swBAWhMTL3wnej93oaS0ClBQOAKs8jbEbx_o- Received: from cgf.cx (cgf@173.76.48.192 with login) by smtp101.vzn.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Oct 2011 16:34:50 -0700 PDT Received: from localhost (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3663113C0D3 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:34:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:35:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: ATTENTION: Tcl/Tk transition Message-ID: <20111026233450.GB6482@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com References: <1319662955.7192.68.camel@YAAKOV04> <1319665558.90381.YahooMailNeo@web114712.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1319666028.11531.YahooMailNeo@web114720.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20111026222153.GA6482@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <1319669958.14253.YahooMailNeo@web114704.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1319669958.14253.YahooMailNeo@web114704.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00091.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:59:18PM -0700, Cary R. wrote: >I already spend most of my free time working on an open source Verilog >simulator, so unfortunately, no, I'm not going to volunteer. I >understand the reason for switching, but be prepared for some serious >user complaints once this is implemented. I've been with the Cygwin project for more than a decade. I know what to (excuse the expression) expect. And, I'm sure that Yaakov who has also been around for a while and maintains scores of important packages is also quite aware that people will be surprised by any major change, even ones that are preannounced. You don't have the inclination to work on supporting tk-on-windows-with-a-side-of-cygwin. Neither does anyone else. Keeping tcl/tk in the dark ages and potentially causing problems for programs like expect and gitk is a sure recipe for complaints since programs are drifting further and further from optimal configurations. In fact, this whole thread is prompted by a complaint/request in the cygwin list. >I don't normally have time to read the general cygwin list, but if you >haven't done so already I will strongly suggest starting a thread there >that discusses this changeand its ramifications. To me the >ramifications are the most important for the general users. I'm sure >the developers have discussed this in great detail and I vaguely >remember discussions about this in the past, but I'm guessing the >normal users will be quite surprised bythis change. > >I can adapt and Linux inside VirtualBox has softened my usage of cygwin >already. gitk requiring an X server may push me a bit further in that >direction. If you feel the need to raise the alarm to the Cygwin list, please go ahead. It's hard for me to see what you're expecting, though. You don't want things to change but you don't seem to be proposing any solutions other than, presumably, "don't update anything". If you think that running VirtualBox is really an alternative to just starting X then that's definitely something you should pursue even if it's hard to see how that jives with your concern that "the X server was a bit of a resource hog". cgf