This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [PATCH] libtool patch for direct-linking-to-dll
- From: Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 00:22:09 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] libtool patch for direct-linking-to-dll
- References: <001801c2df1f$6647b1b0$0a1c440a@BRAMSCHE>
[BTW, Ralf, patches to libtool don't belong on cygwin-apps. It's not a
packaging issue, a packaging-policy issue, nor a setup issue. This
thread belongs on the main cygwin list.]
Ralf Habacker wrote:
>> Any hints or comments ?
Haven't reviewed or tested the patch yet [that'll come later], but I do
have an opinion about the adoption timeline...
In the past, when some nifty-new libtool feature depended on a binutils
or gcc improvement, we did the following:
1) push the change into the appropriate cygwin package, and release it
-- this usually involves wheedling cgf <g>
Chris - it appears that Fabrizio's release form ("allow PE executables
to have an export table") is on the slow boat. Can we go ahead and have
a new release of binutils with Ralf's (already in CVS) "link directly to
dlls" stuff? Mebbe after the dumper/objdump thing [whatever; I haven't
been paying close attention] is cleared up?
2) after the "curr" binutils or gcc has the feature, wait a month or
so to allow most people to test that release (we don't want to be
caught putting out a new libtool that requires
nifty-binutils-feature-X, only to see the that binutils release
withdrawn for some reason). so, wait...
tick tock tick tock
3) about two weeks or so into this "official binutils/gcc vetting
process, release a **test** version of the new-and-improved
tick tock tick tock
4) If all goes well, promote the test libtool to curr.
Note that I didn't say "worry about whether nifty feature X is available
in binutils". Given that we're still talking about *CVS* libtool, we
can reasonably require that users of CVS libtool (e.g. -devel) have the
latest-and-greatest binutils/gcc/etc. We don't need to futz with
check-this-thing, check-that-thing. Sheesh, libtool-on-cygwin, even
with the latest improvements, is still slow as frozen molasses. We
don't need to slow it further, just to deal with something that (IMO) is
really a distribution-integration issue.
Now, about your implementation; I'll check that later...
>> 2003-02-27 Ralf Habacker <ralf dot habacker at freenet dot de>
>> * libtool.m4 (AC_LIBTOOL_SYS_DYNAMIC_LINKER): Removed
>> postinstall_cmds and postuninstall_cmds,
>> added shared library to 'library_names_spec'.
>> (AC_LIBTOOL_LANG_CXX_CONFIG): Removed import library
>> generation from 'archive_cmds'.
>> * ltmain.sh: (install cygwin/mingw): added installing
>> of shared libraries into 'bin' dir
>> (uninstall cygwin/mingw): added uninstalling
>> of shared libraries
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html