New version of bzip2 uploaded to sourceware

[Chris Faylor]

On Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 07:33:03PM +0200, Michael Ring wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:00:20 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>Michael Ring wrote:
>>
>>> 
>>> HINT: There's also a .dll + bzip2-shared.exe included. Funny thing is,
>>> that it runs fine with a current snapshot, but stackdunps on an 'old'
>>> 1.1.2 installation. Chuck, rest of the world, any ideas ??
>>> 
>>
>>Yup, stackdumps for me (uname -a = CYGWIN_NT-5.0 KHELDAR
>>1.1.3s(0.22/3/2) 2000-06-28 23:55 i686 unknown) e.g. June 28 snapshot.
>>The stackdump is pretty uninformative, though, because the binary is
>>stripped (as it should be, IMO), so I am not including it here.
>>
>
>I am using CYGWIN_NT-5.0 BOWMAN 1.1.3s(0.24/3/2) 2000-07-10 23:55 i686
>unknown.
>
>I read that the bug was completely fixed on 11th, perhaps the snapshot
>from 10th already fixed some of the trouble. I will look if I can find
>a newer one and have a look at it.

I didn't completely fix this until last night.  The message about "perl
not working" in the cygwin mailing list (which, for some reason, quoted my
cygwin-developers announcement) pointed out another impure_ptr problem.
Luckily this should was solved by making changes in the DLL.

I did (try to?) fix another libcygwin.a problem that Eric Fifer reported
last night, though, so everyone should update to that.

>>1) either the dll should not be stripped, or you should distribute an
>>import lib libbz2.dll.a (I prefer *both* an unstripped dll *and* an
>>import lib). I don't think it's possible to link directly to a stripped
>>dll, so providing a stripped dll w/o import lib is not very useful.
>
>O.K. Providing an import lib seems to make sense. 8-)
>Of course I did not find the problem because compile of dll and the
>.exe happen directly one after another. Thanks for pointing that out.
>
>Where is the advantage of also providing an unstripped dll? If someone
>needs to debug deep into the lib he should re-compile it for him/her
>self. Size does not matter in this particular dll but if I think about
>gtk or gnome libs that's another story.

I agree with this.  I have been stripping the binaries and DLLs that
I distribute.  I think that if a problem happens to a person who
understands about symbols they should be able to rebuild everything
and debug.  Otherwise, we're just taking up disk space.

This does, of course, run counter to Cygnus's (and, I belive, Red Hat's)
standard way of doing things but then call me a maverick.

Note for the uninitiated:  The next step in this discussion is to point
out that "disk space is cheap nowadays and more and more people have
high speed internet access".  This is then followed by the argument
"Well, I'm running on a 33MHZ 486 with a 300MB and I'm using a 24K
modem.  I want everything as small as possible!"

[Not much opinion on point 2]

>>3) the src archive should extract to <cwd>/bzip2-1.0.1 not
>><cwd>/src/bzip2-1.0.1
>>
>
>Yow, count me on the list of supporters for this! I did include the
>src directory because this seems the way that src-packages are done at
>this time. I also do not like this and only did it like the 'rest of
>the herd. 

The source packages that I provide don't do this.  Probably some others
do.  I think that the 'src' is extraneous and should be removed.

cgf