This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: ATTENTION: Tcl/Tk transition
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:59:18PM -0700, Cary R. wrote:
>I already spend most of my free time working on an open source Verilog
>simulator, so unfortunately, no, I'm not going to volunteer. I
>understand the reason for switching, but be prepared for some serious
>user complaints once this is implemented.
I've been with the Cygwin project for more than a decade. I know what
to (excuse the expression) expect. And, I'm sure that Yaakov who has
also been around for a while and maintains scores of important packages
is also quite aware that people will be surprised by any major change,
even ones that are preannounced.
You don't have the inclination to work on supporting
tk-on-windows-with-a-side-of-cygwin. Neither does anyone else. Keeping
tcl/tk in the dark ages and potentially causing problems for programs
like expect and gitk is a sure recipe for complaints since programs are
drifting further and further from optimal configurations. In fact, this
whole thread is prompted by a complaint/request in the cygwin list.
>I don't normally have time to read the general cygwin list, but if you
>haven't done so already I will strongly suggest starting a thread there
>that discusses this changeand its ramifications. To me the
>ramifications are the most important for the general users. I'm sure
>the developers have discussed this in great detail and I vaguely
>remember discussions about this in the past, but I'm guessing the
>normal users will be quite surprised bythis change.
>
>I can adapt and Linux inside VirtualBox has softened my usage of cygwin
>already. gitk requiring an X server may push me a bit further in that
>direction.
If you feel the need to raise the alarm to the Cygwin list, please go
ahead. It's hard for me to see what you're expecting, though. You
don't want things to change but you don't seem to be proposing any
solutions other than, presumably, "don't update anything".
If you think that running VirtualBox is really an alternative to just
starting X then that's definitely something you should pursue even if
it's hard to see how that jives with your concern that "the X server was
a bit of a resource hog".
cgf