Did some porting for cygwin

Did some porting for cygwin

[Marcus Börger]

Hi,

i did some porting for cygwin, interested?

+gd 2.0.1
+findutils 4.1
+pdflif 4.0.1
+freetype.2.0.4
+libmcrypt 2.4.4
+ mhash 0.8.10

all this shoul go into php 4.0.6 what i am not able to link at present time


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Did some porting for cygwin

[Charles S. Wilson]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 399 bytes --]

Marcus Börger wrote:


> +freetype.2.0.4

NO.  this is included in the cygwin-xfree project.  We shouldn't have 
two different (conflicting?) versions of the same thing.

--Chuck


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Did some porting for cygwin

[E]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 950 bytes --]

At 10:46 PM 21/07/2001 -0400, Charles S. Wilson wrote:
>Marcus Börger wrote:
>
>>+freetype.2.0.4
>
>NO.  this is included in the cygwin-xfree project.  We shouldn't have two 
>different (conflicting?) versions of the same thing.
>
>--Chuck

In that case, seeing as it appears to be useful for more than just X 
applications, would it be worthwhile moving it from the cygwin-xfree 
project to a package under the base cygwin distribution?

Still only one version, but a wider audience.  Freetype compiled with no 
actual source modifications once you'd frigged around with one of the 
config files a bit IIRC, so unless there are some cygwin-xfree patches to 
it that make is unusable otherwise, it shouldn't be too difficult.

E.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Did some porting for cygwin

[Charles Wilson]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2308 bytes --]

E wrote:

> At 10:46 PM 21/07/2001 -0400, Charles S. Wilson wrote:
> 
>> Marcus Börger wrote:
>>
>>> +freetype.2.0.4
>>
>>
>> NO.  this is included in the cygwin-xfree project.  We shouldn't have 
>> two different (conflicting?) versions of the same thing.
>>
>> --Chuck
> 
> 
> In that case, seeing as it appears to be useful for more than just X 
> applications, would it be worthwhile moving it from the cygwin-xfree 
> project to a package under the base cygwin distribution?


Actually, The Right Thing(tm) to do is:
   (a) wait for the dependency stuff in setup.exe to settle down.
   (b) which is a pre-req for: convince Suhaib/others to split up the 
xfree distribution into package-pieces.  Currently, *all* DLLs are in a 
monolithic tarball, even though fonts have their own tarball, the server 
has its own tarball, etc.  E.g. "freetype" binaries are intermingled 
with everything else; the packaging is not source-code-dist specific.
   (c) convince Suhaib/others to also add the freetype *exe's* to this 
(as-yet-nonexistent) freetype tarball (currently, only libs and headers 
are included in the monolithic "all-dlls" tarball.)
   (d) migrate all cygwin-xfree packages over to the "official" 
distribution/setup.exe structure.

AFAIK, this ^^^^ is the current plan of action for cygwin-xfree (well, 
(a) and (d) are; (b) & (c) are my wish-list for freetype).


> Still only one version, but a wider audience.  Freetype compiled with no 
> actual source modifications once you'd frigged around with one of the 
> config files a bit IIRC, so unless there are some cygwin-xfree patches 
> to it that make is unusable otherwise, it shouldn't be too difficult.


The cygwin-xfree people get justifiably upset when a "fork" like this 
happens (and make no mistake, what you're proposing is a fork -- or will 
become one once the inevitable version-skew happens).  Go read up on the 
xpm/xpm-nox "discussions" on the cgywin-apps and cygwin-xfree mailing lists.

Besides, freetype is useless without the X libraries, anyway.  If they 
are going to do the work, let them.

--Chuck



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Did some porting for cygwin

[E]

At 12:36 PM 22/07/2001 -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>The cygwin-xfree people get justifiably upset when a "fork" like this 
>happens (and make no mistake, what you're proposing is a fork -- or will 
>become one once the inevitable version-skew happens).

I think the mistake is on your part.  I am not proposing a fork.  I am 
suggesting that the freetype package be contributed by cygwin-xfree into 
the base set of packages for cygwin.  If the answer to that is "it will 
happen soon, just wait a bit" then that's fine.  You could have said that 
without the condescendence(tm).

>Besides, freetype is useless without the X libraries, anyway.

Well, judging from the original email, it is at least useful for PHP, which 
is not X based to my knowledge.  I know I've used it in another application 
that was not X based.  So I guess it is not totally useless with the X 
libraries, anyway.

E.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Did some porting for cygwin

[Charles Wilson]

E wrote:

> At 12:36 PM 22/07/2001 -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> 
>> The cygwin-xfree people get justifiably upset when a "fork" like this 
>> happens (and make no mistake, what you're proposing is a fork -- or 
>> will become one once the inevitable version-skew happens).
> 
> 
> I think the mistake is on your part.  I am not proposing a fork.  I am 
> suggesting that the freetype package be contributed by cygwin-xfree into 
> the base set of packages for cygwin.  


Ah. It sounded like you wanted a freetype package, separate from what 
was distributed (already) by the cygwin-xfree people.  Sorry for the 
misunderstanding.

> If the answer to that is "it will 
> happen soon, just wait a bit" then that's fine. 


I *think* that is the current plan -- modulo splitting it out from the 
Xbin.tgz package and into its own "freetype" package.  If the 
cygwin-xfree folks don't want to do that, then it ain't gonna happen -- 
cgf has already given them veto power *specifically* over libfreetype. 
(Long story, go read the thread in cgywin-xfree mailing list archives)

> You could have said 
> that without the condescendence(tm).


Didn't intend to be so.  Sorry if it came across that way.

 
>> Besides, freetype is useless without the X libraries, anyway.
> 
> 
> Well, judging from the original email, it is at least useful for PHP, 
> which is not X based to my knowledge.  I know I've used it in another 
> application that was not X based.  So I guess it is not totally useless 
> with the X libraries, anyway.


<crotchety voice> Well, back in the day when I provided libfreetype-1 
<cough hack></crotchety voice>  from the CygUtils webpage, it did depend 
on X.  However, it appears that freetype-2 no longer does -- I just did 
a cygcheck on the latest libfreetype.dll from 
cygwin-xfree-4.1.0/Xbin.tgz, and it doesn't depend on any of the X 
dll's.  So, it looks like you're right -- my info was out of date.
   Sorry for the confusion.

--Chuck




--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Did some porting for cygwin

[E]

At 07:29 PM 22/07/2001 -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>You could have said that without the condescendence(tm).
>
>Didn't intend to be so.  Sorry if it came across that way.

No worries.

><crotchety voice> Well, back in the day when I provided libfreetype-1 
><cough hack></crotchety voice>  from the CygUtils webpage, it did depend 
>on X.  However, it appears that freetype-2 no longer does -- I just did a 
>cygcheck on the latest libfreetype.dll from cygwin-xfree-4.1.0/Xbin.tgz, 
>and it doesn't depend on any of the X dll's.  So, it looks like you're 
>right -- my info was out of date.
>   Sorry for the confusion.

and, no worries.

E.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Did some porting for cygwin

[Stipe Tolj]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1112 bytes --]

Hi Marcus,

> i did some porting for cygwin, interested?
>
> +gd 2.0.1

yep.

> +findutils 4.1

included within cygwin distrib.

> +pdflif 4.0.1
> +freetype.2.0.4
> +libmcrypt 2.4.4
> + mhash 0.8.10
>
> all this shoul go into php 4.0.6 what i am not able to link at present time

I'm interested in those, due that I provide the patch for the php 4.x port to
cygwin.

I can email you the latest diff on the 4.0.5 tree, so you could try to build an
DLL module for Apache and we may put it on my http://apache.dev.wapme.net/
site.

Stipe

tolj@wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapme Systems AG

Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf

Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299

E-Mail: info@wapme-systems.de
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
wapme.net - wherever you are



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/