This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: AW: libxml2.dll, libxslt.dll, problems with executables linke d to dll's
- From: Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>
- To: Peter Ring <pri at magnus dot dk>
- Cc: "'cygwin at cygwin dot com'" <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 04:53:42 -0500
- Subject: Re: AW: libxml2.dll, libxslt.dll, problems with executables linke d to dll's
- References: <ADF57C3C368ED411803C00508BCDF1A559C780@cddkmail.cph.magnus.local>
Peter Ring wrote:
> Are there any advantages to any of these?
Robert Collins' version is hacked to use the auto-import capabilities of
newer binutils. No __declspec(dll[im? ex?]port) worries.
But it's a fork from the official version. Eventually this will get folded
back into the "real" libtool.
> Are there any advantages to building libtool from the 1.4.2 source?
Dunno.
> Will libtool become part of the standard distribution?
Probably.
> Are we waiting for autoconf/automake/libtool to become a bit more
> stable?
We're waiting for:
1) the new setup (check!)
2) the end of the no-new-packages moratorium (check!)
3) the autoconf 2.13/2.52 automake 1.4p5/1.5 harmonization
3a) -src packaging standard...see cgywin-apps@ over the last week
4) Gary Vaughan (GNU libtool maintainer) to fold Robert's changes into the
"real" libtool
#4 is going to take some time, because Gary's got a new book coming out so
time is at a premium. Therefore, there's little hurry for #3, but we're
a-workin' on it.
--Chuck
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/