On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 10:48:27PM +0530, rahul wrote:
> | > why is the CC defined as gcc ? (why not studio cc ?)
> |
> | Either because at some point in the past whoever integrated xterm couldn't
> | get it to compile with Studio or because the Makefile was copied from
> | another component which couldn't be compiled with Studio. It's also
> | possible that at the time, it was a given that few things would compile
> | with Studio, so gcc was assumed. Mike might know the real answer.
>
> Actually I was thinking about the companion-cd default CC. (not setting the
> CC or setting it to CC=$(CC) still builds it with gcc. )
If it's not my last thought, I dunno.
> I have tested it. will check with Thomas.
Thanks.
> | Did you have to add the README fresh? There is, or at least was, a
> | README.sfw file that talked a little about what patches were applied and
> | how it was built. Is that no longer there?
>
> I had to do the METADATA and README.SFWxterm fresh.
Okay. There isn't a README.sfw? That's what I have in my admittedly old
workspace. The contents are
Two patches were applied. One was to change references to <menu.h> to
"menu.h" to ensure that the correct header file was included, and the
second to force uxterm to run this xterm (/opt/sfw/bin/xterm) rather
than what's in $PATH by default.
Configured with:
./configure --enable-256-color --enable-88-color --enable-wide-chars
Built with:
make
Thanks,
Danek
