Re: Tcl/tk dll's

2012-02-09 Thread Charles Wilson
On 2/8/2012 9:14 PM, 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

Re: Tcl/tk dll's

2012-02-09 Thread Yaakov (Cygwin/X)
On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 07:46 +0100, marco atzeri wrote: > I was in fact thinking about the ITP of R starting from your version That would be great. Is there anything there that you feel needs to be changed? > I was just wondering if I could live with libR.dll or hack it in cygR.dll. I wouldn't b

Re: Tcl/tk dll's

2012-02-08 Thread marco atzeri
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" pref

Re: Tcl/tk dll's

2012-02-08 Thread Yaakov (Cygwin/X)
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" pr