Re: tclsh83.exe should be cygtclsh83.exe

["Peter A. Castro" <doctor at fruitbat dot org>]

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 conflicted
> > with the working tclsh83.exe I already had in my path.   Shouldn't the
> > name of this by cygtclsh83.exe?
> 
> No.  Are you suggesting that all 508 of the .exe's in my /bin should 
> really be named "cyg*.exe"?  "cyglynx" "cygman" "cygless"  just because 
> they MIGHT conflict with a mingw or native version of less.exe or man.exe?
> 
> 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 name different for this platform?  I've had to hack some
autoconf generated configure scripts because they wanted 'libtcl83' not
'libcygtcl83'.

> It's easy to avoid executable PATH conflicts -- just make sure the tclsh 
> you want appears in the PATH before the one you don't like.  End of problem.
> 
> --Chuck
> 
> P.S.  Now, we *do* name all DLL's with a special 'cyg' prefix, but that 
> is because DLLs are a much more complicated problem than EXEs (memory 
> resident, etc etc)

For DLLs, I can see why they are tagged with 'cyg' (this *is* still
Windows under the hood), but what about static linklibs? 


-- 
Peter A. Castro <doctor@fruitbat.org> or <Peter.Castro@oracle.com>
	"Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood


--
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/