Re: Cygwin/X NEdit package maintainership

[Harold L Hunt II <huntharo at msu dot edu>]

Nathan Gray wrote:

> On Jan 2, 2004, at 2:14 PM, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
>
> > I didn't have to define BUILD_BROKEN_NEDIT, but I don't think that 
> > check_lin_tif was being built in the default build for Cygwin, so the 
> > version of LessTif is not being checked.  When I built it manually it 
> > showed that 0.93.91 is an untested version, but not a version 
> > explicitly known to be broken.
>
>
> Interesting.  That means a bug in our build system -- check_lin_tif 
> should be built on all platforms that are likely to use LessTif.

I log my output from builds and I found nothing indicating that it was 
built; it would be pretty hard to miss the large message that is 
printed.  I also did a search for check_lin_tif.c in my build log and 
came up with nothing.  In looking at the Makefiles, I didn't see 
anywhere that the target that creates the check_lin_tif executable was 
made a dependency of all.

> Scott did a good job of explaining our position on untested LessTif 
> versions so I won't rehash that here, but I will reiterate that it would 
> not be wise to distribute an NEdit built against such a LessTif without 
> extensive testing (e.g. somebody using it for real work for a week or 
> two).  If you do such testing and find that the version of LessTif 
> you're using is good then let us know and we'll add it to the known-good 
> list.

Well, there are likely already tons of people using the package... but I 
would feel better if someone would confirm that they did not get any 
crashes in a week of heavy use.  Any volunteers to test the NEdit 
package on Cygwin/X that is installed via Cygwin's setup.exe?

Harold