Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>]

Still here swinging away, huh?  Haven't you already made these points?  I
was going to let this slide because you had the courtesy to apologize, even
if you tried to retroactively justify your rude behavior.  However, if you
want to keep this going, I guess I can comply.  I love pointing out fractured
thinking to people.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 01:52:47PM -0700, Stephen P. Harris wrote:
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Alexander Gottwald" <Alexander.Gottwald@s1999.tu-chemnitz.de>
>To: <cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com>
>Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 1:02 AM
>Subject: Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin
>
>
>>Stephen P. Harris wrote:
>>
>>>Also I didn't know .so files were forbidden to Cygwin
>>
>>They are not forbidden. But standard shared library naming on windows
>>is .dll and this is used by most cygwin packages.
>>
>Chris Faylor wrote:  "0. Cygwin/Windows do not use .so files."
>
>SH: Perhaps you think saying .so files are not standard or used by
>most is equivalent to  "0. Cygwin/Windows do not use .so files."
>Since Cygwin Apache comes with .so files your remark does not
>clarify Chris Faylor's comment, but contradicts it. It is the difference
>between "all" and "most".

I'm sorry for my imprecise language.  Let me clarify.  As you have so
cleverly discovered (after many frantic hours of digging, I'm sure) it
is possible to use other extensions for shared libraries on Windows.
Yes, cygwin does have a couple of packages which do not use the ".dll"
extension for their shared libraries.

Regardless of the *extension* however, the files are still Windows DLLs,
not ELF shared libraries as are found on Linux.  You are obviously
unclear on this and are now, apparently, thrashing about rather
comically trying to wildly move off the topic of your own ignorance.

>>>1. "If you are truly using XFree86 then you're off-topic for this mailing
>>>list. "We don't support XFree86 anymore." Unless you are in charge of 
>>>this
>>>list with the power of refuting the FAQ the use of "we" seems yet another
>>>case of the "we" consisting of an X-man with a mouse in his pocket. 
>>>People
>>>with little qualification habitually use the term "we" to hide their
>>>inexperience. It advertises their feeling of being on insecure ground.
>>
>>Cygwin is a project were many people gather to work together. Those people
>>usually have a very good insight of what is going on. If you want someone
>>speak up who is the head of cygwin then you should ask Chris Faylor. Or
>>you want a word from the Cygwin/X maintainer (thats me)?
>
>I suppose then that you are the best person to mention this to.
>It was Chris Faylor who wrote:
>
>>1. If you are truly using XFree86 then you're off-topic for this mailing
>>  list.  We don't support XFree86 anymore.
>
>That may be, but how am I to know that?

I said that it was so just above after the 1.  Here, let me say it for you
again:

1. If you are truly using XFree86 then you're off-topic for this mailing
   list.  We don't support XFree86 anymore.

Did you see it this time?  I hope so, because I hate to keep repeating
myself.

>The FAQ says:
>
>"Almost anything related to Cygwin is on-topic here.  Please note,
>that this is not a mailing list for the discussion of general Windows
>topics.  There are many many other places for that on the Internet.
>
>Also note, that if you are interested in the Cygwin XFree86 project
>which is porting the XFree86 code to Windows, then the correct
>mailing list for this discussion is cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com. "
>
>SH: I assume then that the FAQ does not need to be amended and
>that Chris Faylor can contradict the FAQ whenever he chooses.

Wow, yeah, if the Cygwin FAQ actually said anything like that it would
be the cause of some confusion.

That is the information you get if you send a command to ezmlm asking
for the FAQ for the cygwin-at-cygwin mailing list.

The real Cygwin FAQ at http://cygwin.com/faq.html doesn't mention
XFree86.

http://cygwin.com/lists.html gets it right.  The FAQ at x.cygwin.com
only mentions XFree86 appropriately.

Nevertheless, I have now eliminated the source of your confusion.  As
embarrassing as it is to admit, I had to ask Igor where in the world
this text came from.  It is particularly embarrassing because I wrote
the words years ago when we were still using XFree86.

>>| We do not support XFree86 for some time now. We changed to Xorg. The
>>| compatibility package is just for applications which use older shared
>>| libraries which are binary incompatible with the current. (But I guess
>>| this is something you figured out yourself with your experience)
>>
>
>I don't think it takes experience to realize the above statement does not
>justify Chris Faylor's statement:
>
>>3. I doubt that anyone knows what "the compatibility file" is.
>>
>
>SH: I didn't identify it as an 'X11 compatibility file'

No, you didn't.  You're correct.  You identified it as "the
compatibility file".  That's why I said "the compatibility file".

>I suppose that requires a tremendous leap of insight when taken in the
>context of mentioning that I have all the X11 packages.

You keep claiming that, but as it turns out, you probably didn't have
all of the packages, which is why Brian callously insulted you by asking
you for your configuration information.

>Not _obsolete "Category X11 XFree86-lib-compat: Cygwin/X 4.2.0 shared
>libraries."

So, "the compatibility file" equates to "Not _obsolete "Category X11
XFree86-lib-compat: Cygwin/X 4.2.0 shared libraries."  I'm not sure where
the "Not _obsolete" comes from but let me clarify this for you:  these
libraries are deprecated and unsupported.

How would you know that???????  Well, you could search the mailing list
archives or you could just take my word for it.

Regardless, when one uses imprecise language like "the compatibility
file" to mean "the XFree86 compatibility libraries" it makes people
think (correctly in your case) that you have no idea what you're talking
about.  That's why they ask you for clarification.

We now understand that asking you for clarification is akin to
questioning your manhood and is bound to evoke outraged and rude
behavior on your part.  So, I doubt that anyone will make the mistake of
asking you to clarify your imprecise terminology again.

>SH: I don't think it takes an unusual degree of intelligence to realize
>that lib-compat stands for library compatibility. I do think it takes
>an unusual degree of intelligence to think that understanding is
>difficult for someone else, or requires Cygwin experience.

Does it take an unusual degree of intelligence to realize that didn't
use the term "lib-compat"?

If you had said something like "lib-compat" then, possibly, we could
have inferred what you were talking about.  However since you were
claiming to have both XFree86 and X.org installed on your system, it was
entirely possible that both "lib-compat" and "the compatibility file"
meant something else entirely.  The only way to know for sure would
be to ask you for...

Uh.  Nevermind.

>Do you mean me or the author of the paragraph you quote below?
>
>>| We do not support XFree86 for some time now. We changed to Xorg. The
>>| compatibility package is just for applications which use older shared
>>| libraries which are binary incompatible with the current. (But I guess
>>| this is something you figured out yourself with your experience)
>>
>Chris Furman: 3. I doubt that anyone knows what "the compatibility file" is.
>There is only one of this type:
>"Category X11 XFree86-lib-compat: Cygwin/X 4.2.0 shared libraries."

So are you now somehow making fun of my name or is this YA case of your
problem with using properly descriptive terms like *names*?

>Chris Furman's post was 90% wrong.  It would be very charitable to
>merely call it sloppy.  He appears to be unacquainted with the FAQ and
>the list of download files available in setup.exe.  I suppose that is a
>qualification for Chris Furman ..."who is the head of cygwin".  Maybe
>he is like a lot of Department Heads, in charge of funding.  I suppose
>a benefit is the ability to remove his posts of dubious quality.

The only posts of dubious quality that I remove are viruses, occasionally
spam.  So, never fear, your messages are safe.

>CF wrote:  "4. Assuming that a linux shared library will work on Windows
>demonstrates that you should not be casting aspersions on people who are
>trying to help you because you obviously need a lot of help."
>
>SH: Well, fltk is platform independent so that is a major hurdle passed.

Many software packages are platform independent.  That doesn't mean that
you can take a binary executable from the package on one platform and
make it run on another.  And, since you are a fan of documentation, you
might be interested in these words right at the top of the cygwin web site:

  # Cygwin is not a way to run native linux apps on Windows.  You have to
  rebuild your application from source if you want to get it running on
  Windows.

>From my level, the ./configure switches passed on were complicated
>and required a lot of experience with Cygwin, so I did need a lot of help.

Right.  You needed a lot of help.  That's what I was saying.

>But since the correct syntax and ordering of libraries was sufficient,
>it means the assumption flpsed would work under Cygwin was fairly
>reasonable and CF questioned that assumption with "demonstrates".

Since Cygwin has hundreds of packages running on it, OF COURSE it is
reasonable to assume that one would be able to *port* another package to
it.

However, of the hundreds of packages running on Cygwin, how many of them
do you think are just straight copies of linux executables from a Debian
system to Windows.  Zero.

Once again, let me point out that moving a linux/ELF shared library to
Windows shows that you don't know what you're doing.  There's nothing
wrong with not knowing what you're doing.  Everyone starts out not knowing.

I've tried hard not to call you stupid.  You're obviously ignorant but,
then, you have admitted that.  Being as ignorant as you are, you'd really
be rather well served to stop digging yourself deeper and deeper into
this ludicrous hole and just think about being slightly more humble
when someone like Brian tries to help you.  That's all that I was
saying.

>The actual help I received came from Brian Dessent who I wrongfully
>maligned (maybe Furman is guilty of no more than dismal sarcasm).

The actual help you received came from someone who was trying to help
you technically.  I was trying to improve your behavior and defend
someone you maligned and whom I respect.

If you thought that anything in my message was actually intended to
help you port flpsed then you completely misread my intent.

>Brian's effort was very clever and I also appreciate the package
>installment method used for setup.exe (no matter who gets credit).

Um, yeah.  Kissing up now are we?  I guess that's better than being
rude.

cgf