On Mar 13 12:46, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > On 2014-03-12 13:41, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >Our maintainers of the mingw-binutls and native binutils package just > >have to update the packages to the latest from binutils git. Actually, > >that reminds me... > > > >JonY, ping? A couple of days ago, Nick Clifton updated binutils for > >Windows so that every executable, which doesn't provide its own > >manifest, will get a default manifest. > [snip] > >So, if you have a bit of time, it would be nice to get new > >mingw64-i686-binutils and mingw64-x86_64-binutils packages (as well > >as a new Cygwin binutils, but cgf already knows about this). > > Not to mention a new cygwin*-binutils for Cygwin and Fedora. cgf, > are you carrying any patches on top of today's 2.24.51 snapshot? > > Once all the PE-target binutils are updated, I can rip out all the > manifest-generation code in cygport, right?
In theory, yes. Given that the default manifest will mark the executable as "asInvoker", it will remove the requirement to have all the "asInvoker" manifests alongside patch.exe, install.exe, install-info.exe, update-mime-database.exe, etc, as soon as the are rebuilt with the new binutils. > >Every time a new Windows version is released, we will have to update the > >default manifest in binutils, too, but that's the price we have to pay > >for compatibility. Sigh. > > A mass rebuild every few years wouldn't hurt; I'd say we're actually > overdue for one on x86. Nice idea, but pretty much impossible, I assume. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
pgpKihAEc8d7P.pgp
Description: PGP signature
