Den 2009-06-18 21:22 skrev Yaakov (Cygwin/X):
On 18/06/2009 13:31, Peter Rosin wrote:
There is a pending patch for libtool that adds MSVC support. That patch
will not need this, so please special case this to only be active for
gcc (and whatever else needs it).
AFAICS from your patches,
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
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
Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On 18/06/2009 10:56, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
Since I already have a libtool patch pending, I'll see if I can fix this
as well.
Here's a patch. Chuck?
Looks ok. I'll include this in the next cygwin-libtool release, but I
want to have some discussion on the
On 04/06/2009 11:11, Dave Korn wrote:
Sounds like a job for libtool, not automake. :)
Unfortunately, it looks like that's not a joke after all.
Look at func_mode_link (omitting some lines for clarity):
*cygwin* | *mingw* )
cwrappersource=$output_path/$objdir/lt-$output_name.c
On 18/06/2009 10:56, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
Since I already have a libtool patch pending, I'll see if I can fix this
as well.
Here's a patch. Chuck?
Yaakov
--- origsrc/libtool-2.2.7a/libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh 2009-06-15 00:06:10.0 -0500
+++
Den 2009-06-18 20:14 skrev Yaakov (Cygwin/X):
On 18/06/2009 10:56, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
Since I already have a libtool patch pending, I'll see if I can fix this
as well.
Here's a patch. Chuck?
There is a pending patch for libtool that adds MSVC support. That patch
will not need this,
On 18/06/2009 13:31, Peter Rosin wrote:
There is a pending patch for libtool that adds MSVC support. That patch
will not need this, so please special case this to only be active for
gcc (and whatever else needs it).
AFAICS from your patches, you're not using ltwrappers right now. If
On Jun 3 19:25, Yaakov S wrote:
Some additional googling revealed that you also mentioned that the
manifests need to be executable[2].
The attached patch is what I have in mind. It won't apply to SVN trunk
yet due to other uncommitted patches in the queue, but I need to fix
that soon
Hello,
* On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 10:25:51AM +0200 Corinna Vinschen wrote:
And, no, I have no idea how to generate inline manifests :}
Taking from a project (Note: I did not write the code in the first
place, so I might be missing the gory details):
- let my.manifest be the
Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:
- let my.manifest be the manifest file
- Generate a .rc file with the line:
1 RT_MANIFEST my.manifest
- Let the resource compiler handle the .rc file, and let windres merge
the info into the executable.
Sounds like a job for automake, not gcc. I don't see
On 04/06/2009 08:19, Charles Wilson wrote:
Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:
- let my.manifest be the manifest file
- Generate a .rc file with the line:
1 RT_MANIFEST my.manifest
- Let the resource compiler handle the .rc file, and let windres merge
the info into the executable.
Sounds like a
Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On 04/06/2009 08:19, Charles Wilson wrote:
Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:
- let my.manifest be the manifest file
- Generate a .rc file with the line:
1 RT_MANIFEST my.manifest
- Let the resource compiler handle the .rc file, and let windres merge
the info into the
On Jun 2 23:21, Yaakov S wrote:
I think the best solution is to let cygport detect susceptible apps
and generate .manifest files automatically.
1. AFAICS, this affects EXEs with names containing install, patch,
setup, or update. Are there any more patterns?
I never saw more than exactly
On Jun 3 10:11, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jun 2 23:21, Yaakov S wrote:
I think the best solution is to let cygport detect susceptible apps
and generate .manifest files automatically.
1. AFAICS, this affects EXEs with names containing install, patch,
setup, or update. Are there
On 03/06/2009 03:11, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
I never saw more than exactly this list.
Got it (and with instal with one L).
I don't know if it matters, but it certainly doesn't hurt either. As a
suggestion, when automating this, the name could be constructed like
this:
I'm up and running again, this time with Windows 7 RC x64 (at least for
now), so I'm getting my first intro to the joys of UAC, which is
fortunately more sane in Win7 than it is in Vista.
I now realize that there are a number of packages, in both the distro
and Ports, which still need
17 matches
Mail list logo
