Re: [PATCH] libtool patch for direct-linking-to-dll

[Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>]

[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      withdrawn for some reason).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
      libtool

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...

--Chuck

>> 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
>>
>> Ralf



--
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/