John Cowan wrote:
Brandon J. Van Every scripsit: Because that's what CMake can currently build. The other way it can currently build things, is cygchicken.dll and libchicken.dll.a. In fact I think I will switch it to this, and make a symlink for cygchicken-0.dll. In either case, I suspect that inconsistency of names is dangerous for the build somehow. I do not at all like solutions that are getting rid of what CMake consistently built. I would like to know what's actually supposed to happen with ld. Do the rename (i.e. copy+delete) to arrange for the file to have the correct name.FWIU, the next version of CMake will do the Right Thing on Cygwin: cygfoo-0.dll in $PREFIX/bin, libfoo.dll.a in $PREFIX/lib. That's what we should emulate. Meaning CMake 2.6? Did you try CMake 2.5 in CVS or something? I filed a feature request about the asymmetrical naming yesterday, but I don't see any response comments on it.
Well, like I said, I'm in the middle of minimizing my environment. I have to do things like walk my dog and eat lunch. This approach is very simple, no more of a kludge than what you have, It changes the CMake generated output. I expect consequences for this, both in operation, builds, and successive installations when things change again. and *works*, *works*, *works*. At present, so does mine, on my box. I'm going to refrain from discussing this further until I've minimized my environment. Then we'll know whether my MinGW tools or Platform SDK was really doing the work. Cheers, Brandon Van Every |
_______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
