On 3/2/2012 1:33 PM, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
From: Christopher Faylor
For the record, I don't think Yaakov, Corinna, or I are really
interested in spending our time adding some sort of suggestion
mechanism
to setup.exe. This would have ramifications both for setup.exe, for
the
script w
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:31:54PM -0600, Robert Miles wrote:
>On 3/2/2012 11:43 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:11:49AM -0600, Robert Miles wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2012 1:38 PM, Jeremy Bopp wrote:
On 03/01/2012 01:05 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 03/01/2012 10:53 AM, Ma
On 3/2/2012 1:02 PM, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
From: Achim Gratz [mailto:strom...@nexgo.de]
I do and FTR: I don't want the cygwin Xorg server to be a dependency
to
all programs that might use X because that would pull in a lot of
packages that I have no use for on most systems.
Right, that
On 3/2/2012 11:43 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:11:49AM -0600, Robert Miles wrote:
On 3/1/2012 1:38 PM, Jeremy Bopp wrote:
On 03/01/2012 01:05 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 03/01/2012 10:53 AM, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
[snip]
I suspect not, but I would like to see su
> From: Achim Gratz [mailto:strom...@nexgo.de]
>
> I do and FTR: I don't want the cygwin Xorg server to be a dependency
to
> all programs that might use X because that would pull in a lot of
> packages that I have no use for on most systems.
Right, that would be a disadvantage of making "xinit"
> From: Yaakov (Cygwin/X)
>
> I haven't seen any questions that I haven't already answered (although
> it would help if your mail client was capable of preserving a thread).
Sorry about that. Hopefully I've cleared up the threading problem now. Please
let me know if you are still seeing a pro
> From: Christopher Faylor
>
> For the record, I don't think Yaakov, Corinna, or I are really
> interested in spending our time adding some sort of suggestion
mechanism
> to setup.exe. This would have ramifications both for setup.exe, for
the
> script which updates setup.ini, and for the genini s
> From: Robert Miles
>
> Does it always require xinit, or only sometimes?
Sometimes.
> If only sometimes, why
> should it always be installed even for computers where there is no
need
> for it?
It should be always be installed if the benefits of always installing it
outweigh the benefits of n
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:11:49AM -0600, Robert Miles wrote:
>On 3/1/2012 1:38 PM, Jeremy Bopp wrote:
>> On 03/01/2012 01:05 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> On 03/01/2012 10:53 AM, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
You don't think that Setup telling the user "package xyz requires
package xinit" mig
Greetings, Achim Gratz!
> As long as setup.exe doesn't handle "recommendations", how about having
> an (empty) package "X-application" (or whatever better name you come up
> with) that all such applications depend on? I'm still not sure how to
> get the actual warning to the user, but for starter
On 3/1/2012 1:38 PM, Jeremy Bopp wrote:
On 03/01/2012 01:05 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 03/01/2012 10:53 AM, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
You don't think that Setup telling the user "package xyz requires
package xinit" might at least tip off some users that running xyz now
requires starting an X s
On 3/1/2012 12:07 PM, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
"Matt Seitz (matseitz)"
"Christopher Faylor" wrote:
In the meantime, if people are piling on to suggest this because they
think it will cause someone to add xinit as a dependency to something
please be assured that this will not happen.
OK, w
"Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" writes:
> Thank you for reinforcing my point.
No, thank you for all your work, because without that we couldn't have
this discussion.
> While we certainly promote the Cygwin/X server, forcing
> xorg-server/xinit as a dependency not only won't prevent questions
> (since the us
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:15 AM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>
> Now please excuse me while I get back to orchestrating the next major
> transition for the distro.
>
>
> Yaakov
>
Thanks very much for this.
Marco
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http:/
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 21:40 +0100, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Earnie Boyd writes:
> > And what Windows user who casually installs Cygwin has access to an X
> > server?
>
> I do and FTR: I don't want the cygwin Xorg server to be a dependency to
> all programs that might use X because that would pull in
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 10:42 -0800, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
> "Christopher Faylor" wrote:
> >
> > Yaakov posted the rationale. You responded to it. Additional
> messages
> > insisting how much you want this are really pretty pointless.
>
> Sorry, I don't mean to be a pest. I'll wait and se
Earnie Boyd writes:
> And what Windows user who casually installs Cygwin has access to an X
> server?
I do and FTR: I don't want the cygwin Xorg server to be a dependency to
all programs that might use X because that would pull in a lot of
packages that I have no use for on most systems. You mig
On 3/1/2012 8:05 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
[your mailer doesn't set In-Reply-To correctly, which means you are
starting a bunch of new threads instead of replying in-thread]
On 03/01/2012 10:53 AM, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
"Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" wrote:
Using X requires user intervention to start
On 03/01/2012 01:05 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 03/01/2012 10:53 AM, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
>> You don't think that Setup telling the user "package xyz requires
>> package xinit" might at least tip off some users that running xyz now
>> requires starting an X server?
>>
>> Even if it doesn't r
[your mailer doesn't set In-Reply-To correctly, which means you are
starting a bunch of new threads instead of replying in-thread]
On 03/01/2012 10:53 AM, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
> "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" wrote:
>> Using X requires user intervention to start an X server first. No
>> amount of au
"Christopher Faylor" wrote:
>
> Yaakov posted the rationale. You responded to it. Additional
messages
> insisting how much you want this are really pretty pointless.
Sorry, I don't mean to be a pest. I'll wait and see if Yaakov replies
to my latest questions.
--
Problem reports: htt
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> TK does not require an X server running on the same system. This has
> been explained in this very thread.
>
> If you have points to make, don't make them with a "me too"
> unless you're planning on addressing the issues that Yaakov rai
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:07:33AM -0800, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
>>"Matt Seitz (matseitz)"
>>>"Christopher Faylor" wrote:
>>>
In the meantime, if people are piling on to suggest this because they
think it will cause someone
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 01:20:49PM -0500, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 09:54:23AM -0800, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
>>>"Christopher Faylor" wrote:
In the meantime, if people are piling on to suggest this because
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:07:33AM -0800, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
>"Matt Seitz (matseitz)"
>>"Christopher Faylor" wrote:
>>
>>> In the meantime, if people are piling on to suggest this because they
>>> think it will cause someone to add xinit as a dependency to something
>>> please be assure
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 09:54:23AM -0800, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
>>"Christopher Faylor" wrote:
>>>
>>> In the meantime, if people are piling on to suggest this because they
>>> think it will cause someone to add xinit as a dependency
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 09:54:23AM -0800, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
>"Christopher Faylor" wrote:
>>
>> In the meantime, if people are piling on to suggest this because they
>> think it will cause someone to add xinit as a dependency to something
>> please be assured that this will not happen.
>
"Matt Seitz (matseitz)"
>"Christopher Faylor" wrote:
>
>> In the meantime, if people are piling on to suggest this because they
>> think it will cause someone to add xinit as a dependency to something
>> please be assured that this will not happen.
>
> OK, what would cause someone to add xinit as
"Christopher Faylor" wrote:
>
> In the meantime, if people are piling on to suggest this because they
> think it will cause someone to add xinit as a dependency to something
> please be assured that this will not happen.
OK, what would cause someone to add xinit as a dependency to something?
--
"Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" wrote:
> Using X requires user intervention to start an X server first. No
> amount of automatic dependencies will change this, and therefore I
don't
> expect that the number of questions would change one iota.
You don't think that Setup telling the user "package xyz requires
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 06:57:27PM -0600, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 13:43 -0800, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
>> Would it help to add "xinit" to the requirements for tcl-tk and other
>> packages that now require an X11 server?
>>
>> I know that there are some use cases where
On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 13:43 -0800, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
> Would it help to add "xinit" to the requirements for tcl-tk and other
> packages that now require an X11 server?
>
> I know that there are some use cases where "xinit" isn't actually
> required. But would the benefit (fewer problem
"Christopher Faylor" wrote:
>
> The only thing that apparently needs addressing is that you read the
> list and comprehend what's going on. I wish we could address that by
> making more people do that. :-)
Would it help to add "xinit" to the requirements for tcl-tk and other
packages that now r
On Feb 29 09:41, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> Fergus writes:
>
> > Q2 In some other contexts Cygwin provides "nox" versions additionally
> > to versions requiring a running X server. Is there any chance that
> > tcl-tk-8.4 could be recovered and offered as a nox version?
>
> +1
>
> Please!
If you
Fergus writes:
> Q2 In some other contexts Cygwin provides "nox" versions additionally
> to versions requiring a running X server. Is there any chance that
> tcl-tk-8.4 could be recovered and offered as a nox version?
+1
Please!
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University
On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 08:24 +, Fergus wrote:
> OK, thanks. I'm really miserable about this advance which has messed
> badly with my preferred MO (amongst other things, not using X).
The old 8.4 win32 tcl/tk was unmaintained and broken in many ways, as
discussed at length on these lists, and n
>> Previously bin/wish was a link to wish84.exe (from memory).
>> Recently it was upgraded to wish 8.5.exe. Now, unless X is
>> also running, wish fails ... I'm not quite certain which
>> recently upgraded package led to this: tcl-tk or tcltk ..?
> The tcltk libraries now require a running X serv
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 09:09:02AM -0600, Jeremy Bopp wrote:
>On 02/24/2012 08:25 AM, Fergus wrote:
>> Previously bin/wish was a link to wish84.exe (from memory). Recently it
>> was upgraded to wish 8.5.exe.
>> Now, unless X is also running, wish fails with
>>
>> $ wish
>> % Application initializa
On 02/24/2012 08:25 AM, Fergus wrote:
> Previously bin/wish was a link to wish84.exe (from memory). Recently it
> was upgraded to wish 8.5.exe.
> Now, unless X is also running, wish fails with
>
> $ wish
> % Application initialization failed: no display name and no $DISPLAY
> environment variable
Previously bin/wish was a link to wish84.exe (from memory). Recently it
was upgraded to wish 8.5.exe.
Now, unless X is also running, wish fails with
$ wish
% Application initialization failed: no display name and no $DISPLAY
environment variable
I'm not quite certain which recently upgraded p
40 matches
Mail list logo
