Hello,
* Charles Wilson wrote on Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 04:31:02PM CEST:
I didn't realize Ralf was on holiday [...]
That and an unintended stay at hospital afterwards to un-break my
collarbone again.
Cheers,
Ralf, typing one-handed ATM
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:25 -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
2007-04-27 Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* ltmain.m4sh (func_emit_libtool_wrapper_script): add
code block to handle cases when wrapper script is in $objdir.
Charles Wilson libtool at cwilson.fastmail.fm writes:
Attached.
Some nits that you should fix, now that you have committed this.
-/* -DDEBUG is fairly common in CFLAGS. */
-#undef DEBUG
+#undef LTWRAPPER_DEBUGPRINTF
#if defined DEBUGWRAPPER
-# define DEBUG(format, ...) fprintf(stderr,
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Could you please resend the patch itself, I am having issues with
stripping the html markup from these links. (well, I can strip the html,
but the resulting patch is not applying.)
Attached.
--
Chuck
2007-04-27 Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* ltmain.m4sh
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:25 -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Could you please resend the patch itself, I am having issues with
stripping the html markup from these links. (well, I can strip the html,
but the resulting patch is not applying.)
Attached.
Thanks, I'll
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:43:50 -0500, Peter O'Gorman said:
I'm lazy and would like to avoid work as much as possible, Gary has
already asked if you'd like a commit bit, I'm hoping you'll agree, then
all we'll need to do is say ok and you can commit your changes
yourself.
As long as somebody
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:25 -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Could you please resend the patch itself, I am having issues with
stripping the html markup from these links. (well, I can strip the html,
but the resulting patch is not applying.)
Attached.
--
Chuck
On Jun 1, 2007, at 4:20 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:27:08 -0400, Charles Wilson said:
On May 4, 2007, Charles Wilson wrote:
Ping?
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2007-04/
msg00088.html
Ping.
If it's Friday, it must be time for:
Could you please
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 10:56:22AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
Noah Misch wrote:
Long-term, we can revise this cumbersome division of work between the
executable
wrapper and the wrapper script. Ideally, the wrapper methodology for Unix
should resemble that for Cygwin/MSYS, so we don't have
Noah Misch wrote:
I don't speak for the Libtool maintainers, but I'll throw out my impressions of
the patch, in case it might help move things along. Not using Cygwin or MSYS
myself these days, I trust that the patch improves things there as you say it
does. It seems fairly harmless from the
On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:27:08 -0400, Charles Wilson said:
On May 4, 2007, Charles Wilson wrote:
Ping?
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2007-04/msg00088.html
Ping.
If it's Friday, it must be time for:
Ping * 3.
--
Chuck
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 05:20:05PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:27:08 -0400, Charles Wilson said:
On May 4, 2007, Charles Wilson wrote:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2007-04/msg00088.html
Ping * 3.
I don't speak for the Libtool maintainers, but
On May 4, 2007, Charles Wilson wrote:
Ping?
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2007-04/msg00088.html
Ping.
--
Chuck
Ping?
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2007-04/msg00088.html
--
Chuck
This is a revised version of the patch that first appeared here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2007-04/msg00050.html
Please refer to that message for a discussion of the theory of this
patch, its effects, and justification.
This patch is phase 2 in the 3-phase sequence of
* Charles Wilson wrote on Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 12:41:08AM CEST:
The only problem I see is if libtool-HEAD-after-2.0 (say, nearing the
/next/ major release) begins requiring ac-2.61/am-1.10 (or even
newer).
You'll have my vote against that happening too soon.
I suspect they will make more of
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:53:46AM CEST:
* Charles Wilson wrote on Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:34:41AM CEST:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
for (i=0; iargc+1; i++)
{
-DEBUG((main) newargz[%d] : %s\n,i,newargz[i]);
+
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Certainly. I was merely trying to not infer that you'd have to do even
more work than the lot that you're already doing. Of course if you're
ambitious go for it. ;-)
Thanks for fixing the MinGW case here.
Sure.
Hmm, maybe one after the `rm -f $prefix/bin/...' and
Hello Charles,
Thanks for the patch again. First review:
* Charles Wilson wrote on Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 03:03:02AM CEST:
This patch depends on this one:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2007-04/msg00048.html
(unfortunately, due to idiocy on my part, that patch will have to
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Charles Wilson wrote on Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 03:03:02AM CEST:
When the wrapper foo.exe is launched, it generates a new wrapper script
.libs/foo_ltshwrapper
Hmm, I'm wondering whether we should keep prefixing within .libs. Maybe
.libs/ltsh-foo
? WDYT?
Meh, I
This patch depends on this one:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2007-04/msg00048.html
With this patch, on cygwin/mingw the wrapper script created by libtool
in '.' is used only for reading back in via func_source(); THIS copy of
the wrapper script is not used during the run
21 matches
Mail list logo
