This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: expat 2.1.0-1
- From: Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at gmail dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:18:36 +0100
- Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: expat 2.1.0-1
- References: <announce dot 4FD7368F dot 70308 at etr-usa dot com> <51671F38 dot 2080403 at gmail dot com> <516D514E dot 8000908 at etr-usa dot com>
On 16/04/2013 14:25, Warren Young wrote:
> On 4/11/2013 14:38, Dave Korn wrote:
>> The static archive /usr/lib/libexpat.a was present in 2.0.1-1(*) and is
>> missing in 2.1.0-1(**), was that intentional?
> I think I got that, um, "feature" for free when I converted to cygport for
> that package. Someone is passing --disable-static to the configure script,
> and it isn't me.
> I've fixed this with CYGCONF_ARGS="--enable-static" The static library
> does now appear in the -devel package.
> The .a is about 3x the size of the .dll. Is that normal, or am I supposed
> to be stripping the .a before packaging it?
Yes, totally normal, it's a whole set of individual object files with all
their overhead, rather than just the linked text/data content of those files.
No, don't strip it, that decision should be left until linking a final
> Does someone actually want this static library? I'm going to RFU it
> anyway, since I've gone to the trouble of fixing it, but I was curious if
> it actually mattered to someone.
GDB apparently prefers linking statically to libexpat. Dunno why, but it
saves me adjusting my dependencies in a package I'm shipping to a customer, so
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple