From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1201 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2002 01:50:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1192 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2002 01:50:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO redhat.com) (66.30.22.225) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2002 01:50:25 -0000 Received: by redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 201) id 97FCD1B5E2; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:50:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:33:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] Fix expect build under cygwin + Tcl/Tk 8.3 Message-ID: <20020730015042.GA25033@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020715150015.747082dd.supermo@bayarea.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020715150015.747082dd.supermo@bayarea.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00574.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 03:00:15PM -0700, Mo DeJong wrote: >> What would have helped would have been if it actually failed for me. >> I can build expect with no problem. > >Expect currently builds, it is Itcl that does not build: > >http://sources.redhat.com/ml/insight/2002-q2/msg00073.html > >> Again, expect is not supposed to be using the windows version of >> anything. It is supposed to be using the cygwin/unix version. > >Ok, you win. Here is a patch to fixup the tcl/cygwin and tcl/win >configures along with expect. It will also fix the Itcl build. > >2002-07-15 Mo DeJong > > * cygwin/configure: Regen. > * cygwin/configure.in: Emit a tclConfig.sh file > so that expect can load it at configure time. > * win/configure: Regen. > * win/configure.in: Don't emit a ../unix/tclConfig.sh > file, this was a hack to get expect to build and > it breaks the Itcl build. I thought I should make it official that I had a private discussion with Mo and "ok'ed" this patch, even though I'm not officially, AFAIK, in a position to do more than suggest that it makes sense to me. I think that's up to Keith, maybe? Unless he wants to grant me authority over cygwin stuff in tcl/tk. cgf