This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 18:22 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:I share cgf's concerns here and your hint isn't comforting me. It would mean that any package maintainer would have to modify scripts or makefiles unless they use cygport - which not all do. Well, I don't anyway. This would be asking for trouble.Doesn't that presuppose that every package maintainer would have to modify their build scripts? You can't just make this the default for ld since not everyone who builds a program necessarily wants to put their dll in .../lib64.Modifying cygport(1), cygport(5)s, and other build scripts in some fashion is inevitable for any of these solutions. The only way to avoid that would be to not support multilib in any form. Since it seems I've been outvoted on *that* point, the only question is finding which method of multilib support which is the least painful.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |