UAC .manifest files

[Peter Rosin]

Den 2009-06-20 09:05 skrev Charles Wilson:
> Peter Rosin wrote:
>> ltwrappers are just replacing the old wrappers AFAIK, and those are
>> indeed needed by the MSVC patches, so that premise has already changed.
>>
>> If you can't be bothered to cooperate with those patches then I can
>> switch to arguing that cccl (wrapper for MSVC) is supported by libtool.
>> When you use cccl with a contemporary MSVC, MSVC will create the
>> manifest for you. You should not overwrite the manifest generated
>> by MSVC in that case.
>>
>> So again, please special case this to only be active for gcc (and
>> whatever else needs it).
> 
> Peter: I don't know why you're arguing with Yaakov; you really should be
> talking to me.  I've already said I want to take this to the libtool
> list and discuss it there, and you can be sure it won't go into
> *libtool-master* until everybody is happy. I just wanted to make sure
> the patch worked and didn't break any of the tests (Bzzt.  bad
> formatting failed sh.test) before I posted it, on Yaakov's behalf, for
> discussion on libtool-patches.
> 
> Now, today's cygwin-only libtool release did include Yaakov's patch, but
> only for this reason: we're coming up on the cygwin-1.7 release and I
> know that Yaakov has about 1500 packages to rebuild in the very near
> future.  Anything to make that easier...  Plus, because I've decided to
> start pushing again -- hard -- to get my existing patches into
> libtool-master, I *know* I'll be rolling a new libtool release fairly
> soon.  So, today's -4/-13 packages will have a pretty short shelf life.
> If they cause a problem for you, don't use them... -3/-12 aren't going
> anywhere, and you'll probably like -5/-14 better.

I argu because I'm peeved. One primary reason and a very secondary
reason.

Primary: Yaakov has been ignoring me. Hard!

* http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2008-11/msg00298.html
* http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2008-12/msg00448.html
* http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2009-06/msg00417.html

I have made several attempts, but I have gotten zero feedback. Nothing
whatsoever. Incredibly rude IMHO. How difficult is it to acknoledge a
bug report? Even to say it is invalid (if that's the case)? I would have
been satisfied with any response I'd gotten (well, any reasonably civil
response), but total silence simply isn't acceptable.

Secondary: Sitting for years waiting for libtool patches to get in
while other libtool patches whissle past in the fast lane will do
strange things to you. You mentioning patches that have not been
merged for a couple of months seem /almost/ like a bad joke (I know
it's not comparable, but that's what it tastes like).

The combination of the above two and the fact that I'm only human
made me lash out.

> As an aside, it's a little ridiculous to badger Yaakov, or anybody else,
> about cooperating with out-of-tree patches.  Now, it's not your fault
> that they are still out of tree. Frankly, I have no idea why they
> weren't merged months ago (same as certain OTHER patches I could
> mention). But until they are merged, and MSVC is fully supported...well,
> you know the score.

Ok, I was out of line about the MSVC patches and that was admittedly
a bad start. I was somewhat upset. But do note that you apparently
missed the passage in the second message where I explain that the
changes are harming existing setups.

My point is that the patch is not perfect and that it needs fixing.
I don't care who fixes it, as long as it's not me. I wouldn't be
surprised if I'm the one who fixes it eventually though.

Cheers,
Peter

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple