This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [ITP, take 2] Re: [ITP] libelf

Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:

> Actually, you need to add an explicit --enable-compat, otherwise
> whenever you need to roll the next version/release, it will see <gelf.h>
> and <libelf.h> present (from this release) and default to DO_COMPAT=no
> to avoid overwriting them (for fear they are libc headers).

  ROFL, of course - good catch!

> Then add these basenames to PATCH_URI.  (This is how I manage all my
> patches nowadays.)  This avoids the problem because the patch is applied
> to origsrc/ before it is copied into src/.  Also this way, you don't
> also have to rename the patch for every version even if the patch itself
> still applies as is with the new version (as it often does).

  Thanks, I had noticed that pattern before but didn't know the details.

> Because I didn't try building gcc with my libelf. :-)  But if gcc needs
> SHN_XINDEX, why not just add the #define to our <sys/elf_common.h>?

  Because GCC needs everything else in libelf, in particular the functions,
not just the #defines, so I wanted it all to come from one nice consistent source.

> In libelf0/setup.hint, libgcc1 is missing from requires:.
> With that and an explicit --enable-compat to cygconf, GTG.

  Thanks, I'll fix those and then upload it myself in the next day or two.
(Unless anyone wants me to post it here for a final review, in which case just

> HTH,

  Certainly did!  Merry christmas :)


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]