This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [ITP] cloudabi-toolchain, cloudab-binutils-*
- From: Jon Turney <jon dot turney at dronecode dot org dot uk>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 21:27:57 +0100
- Subject: Re: [ITP] cloudabi-toolchain, cloudab-binutils-*
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CABbCQwuQnhTWK5M-EgP1vhPBckJ37RrEfYC90QgbHShcNZ5LRQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CABbCQwsknRhfrHSs337O7pVipJGsnj34d5eBK9RfqeZCNp5=vQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <4089EBBF-8605-47CA-984B-527845F7CD27 at etr-usa dot com> <CABbCQwuoNJ2bXKM7gc9u_WCEWBm6BghjhmSbC5_d7xRgXeatHg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 29/03/2016 21:01, Maurice Bos wrote:
2016-03-29 21:53 GMT+02:00 Warren Young:
On Mar 29, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Maurice Bos wrote:
sdesc: "Binutils targetting aarch64 CloudABI"
ldesc: "Binutils targetting aarch64 CloudABIâ
I believe the need for an explicit dependency on cygwin was removed many years ago. A blank ârequiresâ line is perfectly legal.
(If Iâm right about this, I believe Mr. Bos got this idea from the current setup.html page which still shows such examples.)
I used cygport to generate the packages. It did this automatically, it seems.
You are correct that historically, the cygwin dependency was specially
removed by cygport, and then specially added back (for everything) by upset.
This has been rationalized, so that cygport now adds a cygwin dependency
for packages which contain executables which require the cygwin DLL (in
exactly the same way it treats every other executable dependency...), so
this requires: is correct.
Existing packages have been retroactively fixed.
I don't think there's anything that documents the previous behaviour to
update, which was, I believe, for historical reasons to do with correct
post-install dependency ordering, or some such.