Tim,
> > > Right, okay. I'd not have a clue where to start mucking with the
> > > configure.in (or actually how to rebuild it). Which leaves updating
> > > itcl as my only other option.
> >
> > No, don't do that.
> >
>
> Why can't itcl be updated? Do you not expect it to work with ccdpack
> (assuming the private include file is installed)?
Well, I'm prepared to be surprised, but no I don't expect it to
work without hitches since the difference between the CCDPACK and
current version looks like two years and a couple of minor version
numbers. I never felt I really had my head round itcl
and am unenthusiastic about debugging (or even locating) subtle
(or gross) CCDPACK errors introduced by switching versions.
Having said that, the itcl README does suggest that incompatibilities
should be few, so it may be possible. Peter would probably have a
better idea about how much pain this would involve.
But come to think of it - if my earlier posting was right, the
Mac-specific problem in building itcl is nothing to do with the
itcl version, it's down to a file in the Tcl package (tcl/unix/tcl.m4).
So it's updating Tcl (hence Tk) that you're talking about. And I'm
about 1% as keen to get into that as updating itcl.
> Have you considered sending a patch to itcl on sourceforge to make the
> include file public?
No. I assume Ousterhout/Scriptics aren't stupid, so Tcl/Tk presumably
has its reasons for this, and without a fair bit of investigation
I feel it would be impolite for me to do something as fundamental
as publicise private include files. I have neither time, funding
or (especially!) inclination to become a Tcl expert/developer.
If it sounds like your idea of fun though, don't let me stop you!
Mark
--
Mark Taylor Starlink Programmer Physics, Bristol University, UK
[log in to unmask] +44-117-928-8776 http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/
|