On 2/9/2012 3:14 AM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 23:51 +0100, marco atzeri wrote:
curiosity, any reason why the tcl/tk dll's are
not using the cyg prefix ?
In fact, there is. The point of the "cyg" prefix is to avoid possible
mismatches with MinGW DLLs using the "lib" prefix. In this case,
however, forcing a "cyg" prefix with Tcl's unique build system would be
a lot of work for no gain, since Tcl already has its own way of
distinguishing between the two (tclXY.dll vs. libtclX.Y.dll). Note that
python and R (in Ports) do the same thing for the same reason.
For the record, I did patch Tcl to also recognize the "cyg" prefix for
those extensions which are built with other build systems.
Yaakov
Thanks.
I was in fact thinking about the ITP of R starting from your version and
I was just wondering if I could live with libR.dll or hack it in cygR.dll.
I was waiting the TCL/TK transition for a final check
Specially as the dll's are on a dedicate directory, out of the PATH
usr/lib/R/lib/libR.dll
usr/lib/R/lib/libRblas.dll
usr/lib/R/lib/libRlapack.dll
staying with libR.dll should be fine in any case.
Regards
Marco
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
