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

2003-03-10 Thread Charles Wilson
Ralf Habacker wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 08:13:16AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: I didn't realize it was a patch to rip out all of the import-lib building stuff, and replace it with the new link-to-dll support. I've been blissfully trying to avoid libtool discussions but I have to ask my stand

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

2003-03-10 Thread Ralf Habacker
> Okay, I've actually looked at the patch now. Apparently I misunderstood. > > I thought this was a patch to enable using libtool to link against an > outside shared library in which the implib was actually a symlink to a > DLL -- which I didn't think would require much if any hacking with > libto

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

2003-03-10 Thread Ralf Habacker
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 08:13:16AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: > >I didn't realize it was a patch to rip out all of the import-lib > >building stuff, and replace it with the new link-to-dll support. > > I've been blissfully trying to avoid libtool discussions but I have to > ask my standard ques

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

2003-03-10 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 08:13:16AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >I didn't realize it was a patch to rip out all of the import-lib >building stuff, and replace it with the new link-to-dll support. I've been blissfully trying to avoid libtool discussions but I have to ask my standard question of "w

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

2003-03-10 Thread Charles Wilson
[Oops. I replied to Ralf's message without changing the To: address. And since Ralf's message was originally sent to cygwin-apps (where it didn't belong: bad Ralf); my reply went there too: bad Chuck. No cookie.) Okay, I've actually looked at the patch now. Apparently I misunderstood. I thou

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

2003-03-04 Thread Ralf Habacker
> [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.] I apologize for this mistake. Sometime it seems that I have too many things in my head. :-) Ralf -- Unsubs

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

2003-02-28 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 12:22:09AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >[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.] For the record, I've had it with explaining this

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

2003-02-28 Thread Charles Wilson
[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], b