Hello,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 07:43:44AM CEST:
> On 09/22/2010 09:00 PM, Leo Davis wrote:
> >I had to patch libtool in order to get shared libraries to build with
> >the Snow Leopard '@rpath/' syntax which stands in for the place where
> >the lib gets installed. I thought
On 09/22/2010 09:00 PM, Leo Davis wrote:
Hello,
I had to patch libtool in order to get shared libraries to build with
the Snow Leopard '@rpath/' syntax which stands in for the place where
the lib gets installed. I thought that this might be useful for more
than just myself.
Well, there is n
On 23 Sep 2010, at 03:40, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Gary,
Hallo Ralf,
Thanks for the swift reviews again.
> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:29:44PM CEST:
>> On 23 Sep 2010, at 00:35, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:05:48PM CES
Hello,
I had to patch libtool in order to get shared libraries to build with
the Snow Leopard '@rpath/' syntax which stands in for the place where
the lib gets installed. I thought that this might be useful for more
than just myself.
Cheers,
Leo
>From a7f66c6ae219f335d79464350d76245a707e56f9
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:05:50PM CEST:
> This is the second part of the patch I've split since the last
> time I posted. I added Joerg as reporter, and he is already
> named in THANKS.
>
> Okay to push?
With this patch applied, the generated libtool script sti
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:05:51PM CEST:
> I also posted this one before... this time rebased against
> post-2.4 release HEAD.
>
> Okay to push?
Assuming strongly that this patch depends upon the semantics of 3/4
applied, I will review this patch after 3/4 is fix
On 23 Sep 2010, at 01:22, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 08:19:28PM CEST:
>> On 09/22/2010 12:13 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Is it acceptable instead to use a nested $(MAKE) invocation prior to
running help2man to ensure the binary is up-to-date?
>>>
>
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:36:01PM CEST:
> On 23 Sep 2010, at 01:22, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 08:19:28PM CEST:
> >> On 09/22/2010 12:13 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Is it acceptable instead to use a nested $(MAKE) invocation
Hello Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:29:44PM CEST:
> On 23 Sep 2010, at 00:35, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:05:48PM CEST:
> >> * Makefile.am (doc/libtool.1, doc/libtoolize.1): Don't rely on
> >> the intermediate files, sinc
On 23 Sep 2010, at 00:35, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Gary,
Hallo Ralf,
> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:05:48PM CEST:
>> The start of my post-release patch queue... okay to push?
>>
>> * Makefile.am (doc/libtool.1, doc/libtoolize.1): Don't rely on
>> the intermediate file
* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 08:30:08PM CEST:
> On 09/22/2010 12:22 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 08:19:28PM CEST:
> >> $(srcdir)/doc/libtool.1: $(srcdir)/$(auxdir)/ltmain.sh
> >>+ $(MAKE) libtool
> >>$(update_mans) --help-option=--hel
On 09/22/2010 12:22 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 08:19:28PM CEST:
$(srcdir)/doc/libtool.1: $(srcdir)/$(auxdir)/ltmain.sh
+ $(MAKE) libtool
$(update_mans) --help-option=--help-all libtool
When -jN has been passed, the two makes may both t
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:05:49PM CEST:
> * Makefile.am (Libtool scripts.): Move this section below the
> `Bootstrap.' section...
> (libtoolize.in): ...except this one which is generated at
> bootstrap time, and was added into the `Bootstrap.' section.
> (Libltdl.
* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 08:19:28PM CEST:
> On 09/22/2010 12:13 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >>Is it acceptable instead to use a nested $(MAKE) invocation prior to
> >>running help2man to ensure the binary is up-to-date?
> >
> >Can you show a patch so I can see what you mean?
>
>
Oh brother, I just found another regression. :-(
func_fallback_echo isn't even defined inside configure unless we haven't
found a better $ECHO. We should be trying to fork&exec an external
utility with the test string, so that we are actually testing the right
limit.
I'm pushing the fix below,
On 09/22/2010 12:13 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Is it acceptable instead to use a nested $(MAKE) invocation prior to
running help2man to ensure the binary is up-to-date?
Can you show a patch so I can see what you mean?
diff --git i/Makefile.am w/Makefile.am
index 6e29a29..f74708c 100644
--- i/
Hi Eric,
* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:37:58PM CEST:
> On 09/22/2010 11:35 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:05:48PM CEST:
> >>* Makefile.am (doc/libtool.1, doc/libtoolize.1): Don't rely on
> >>the intermediate files, since they might
On 09/22/2010 11:35 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:05:48PM CEST:
The start of my post-release patch queue... okay to push?
* Makefile.am (doc/libtool.1, doc/libtoolize.1): Don't rely on
the intermediate files, since they might have cha
Hello Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:05:48PM CEST:
> The start of my post-release patch queue... okay to push?
>
> * Makefile.am (doc/libtool.1, doc/libtoolize.1): Don't rely on
> the intermediate files, since they might have changed without
> giving make the opportunity
Hello Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 06:27:27PM CEST:
> * libltdl/Makefile.inc (LTDL_VERSION_INFO): We've added the
> static libprefix interface, so new version-info is C+1:0:R+1.
libprefix is a *static* local undocumented variable, not public API.
There was no reas
I also posted this one before... this time rebased against
post-2.4 release HEAD.
Okay to push?
* Makefile.am (bootstrap_files): List files that need to be
generated at bootstrap time before `./configure && make' can
work. It turns out that this is considerably fewer files than we
had thought ne
This is the second part of the patch I've split since the last
time I posted. I added Joerg as reporter, and he is already
named in THANKS.
Okay to push?
* Makefile.am: Having rearranged the file, now apply the actual
changes to follow-up.
(LT_M4SH): Call $(M4SH) with the libtool m4sh directory
I've posted this one before, but this time it's split into two
separate patches. This one to do the rearranging without any
changes, and the next to perform the functional edits.
Okay to push?
* Makefile.am (Libtool scripts.): Move this section below the
`Bootstrap.' section...
(libtoolize.in):
The start of my post-release patch queue... okay to push?
* Makefile.am (doc/libtool.1, doc/libtoolize.1): Don't rely on
the intermediate files, since they might have changed without
giving make the opportunity to update the actual binaries that
help2man calls in time.
Signed-off-by: Gary V. Vaug
Hello,
On 22.09.2010 09:38, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Rainer Tammer wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 09:35:38AM CEST:
>> --- a/README
>> +++ b/README
>> @@ -319,6 +319,17 @@ notice and this notice are preserved. This file is
>> offered as-is,
>> without warranty of any kind.
>>
>>
>> +6. Platform
Den 2010-09-22 10:24 skrev Gary V. Vaughan:
> On 22 Sep 2010, at 15:15, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Den 2010-09-22 10:11 skrev Gary V. Vaughan:
>>> Sure, go ahead. And please add a `no test failures with msvc/msys'
>>> entry to NEWS while you're there.
>>
>> I assume you mean that both patches are OK to
Den 2010-09-22 10:24 skrev Gary V. Vaughan:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 22 Sep 2010, at 15:15, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Den 2010-09-22 10:11 skrev Gary V. Vaughan:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> On 22 Sep 2010, at 15:02, Peter Rosin wrote:
This is fixing a testsuite issue for MSVC, and I don't need it
to go
Hi Peter,
On 22 Sep 2010, at 15:15, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Den 2010-09-22 10:11 skrev Gary V. Vaughan:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 22 Sep 2010, at 15:02, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> This is fixing a testsuite issue for MSVC, and I don't need it
>>> to go in before the release. So, no rush.
>>>
>>> The patch
Den 2010-09-22 10:11 skrev Gary V. Vaughan:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 22 Sep 2010, at 15:02, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> This is fixing a testsuite issue for MSVC, and I don't need it
>> to go in before the release. So, no rush.
>>
>> The patch was previously discussed here:
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/ht
Hi Peter,
On 22 Sep 2010, at 15:02, Peter Rosin wrote:
> This is fixing a testsuite issue for MSVC, and I don't need it
> to go in before the release. So, no rush.
>
> The patch was previously discussed here:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2008-08/msg00051.html
>
> and it i
Hi!
This is fixing a testsuite issue for MSVC, and I don't need it
to go in before the release. So, no rush.
The patch was previously discussed here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2008-08/msg00051.html
and it is on the pr-msvc-support branch as commit
fbc144008bd66848111fb8e
* Rainer Tammer wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 09:35:38AM CEST:
> --- a/README
> +++ b/README
> @@ -319,6 +319,17 @@ notice and this notice are preserved. This file is
> offered as-is,
> without warranty of any kind.
>
>
> +6. Platform specific notes
We already have doc/notes.{texi,txt}.
Cheer
Hello,
On 21.09.2010 19:59, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Rainer,
>
> * Rainer Tammer wrote on Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:15:47AM CEST:
>> after this patch all tests from the old test suite are OK.
> Great!
>
>> The new test suite still shows some problems but its getting much better:
> Yeah. They
Den 2010-09-20 23:30 skrev Roumen Petrov:
> Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Den 2010-09-18 00:04 skrev Roumen Petrov:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> Peter Rosin wrote:
Hi!
need_lib_prefix.at currently fails with MSVC.
>>>
>>> Hmm probably test fail as shared library is build without -no-undefined
>>>
34 matches
Mail list logo
