Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

We currently perform the following sequence of commands as part of the installation (-m 444 being the default on current FreeBSD systems). install -m 444 ./libgcc.a /prefix/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd5.4/3.4.5/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd5.4/3.4.5/ ranlib /prefix/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd5.

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We currently perform the following sequence of commands as part of the > installation (-m 444 being the default on current FreeBSD systems). > > install -m 444 ./libgcc.a > /prefix/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd5.4/3.4.5/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd5.4/3

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

ranlib is required on Darwin after changing the timestamp of the archive. Shantonu On Aug 31, 2005, at 11:02 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: We currently perform the following sequence of commands as part of the installation (-m 444 being the defaul

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Does anyone disagree (and if not, have suggestions how to address this in GCC)? ranlib is basically never required on a modern system. It is really only needed if the archive is built with the S

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 02:15:46PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > >Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>Does anyone disagree (and if not, have suggestions how to address this > >>in GCC)? > > > >ranlib is basically never requ

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> Does anyone disagree (and if not, have suggestions how to address this > >> in GCC)? > > > > ranlib is basically never required on a modern sy

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

Ian Lance Taylor writes: > Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > > > Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > >> Does anyone disagree (and if not, have suggestions how to address this > > >> in GCC)? > > > > > > ra

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: ranlib is basically never required on a modern system. It is really only needed if the archive is built with the S option to ar. >>> If you consider Darwin "modern", then that statement is not correct >>> as moving/copying an archive on darwin

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gerald Pfeifer wrote: |> |>Except that probably this has to get into libtool somehow or |>something. Hmmm. | | | Ouch, now you got me scared. I already started testing a patch to remove | the ranlib invocations that are part of the installation, but

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Peter O'Gorman wrote: | The problem is that libtool tries to run ranlib after install and that | ranlib can fail if the library is not writable? [crosspost - beware - for context see ] When I look mor

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

Hi Peter, * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 07:09:35AM CEST: > Peter O'Gorman wrote: > | The problem is that libtool tries to run ranlib after install and that > | ranlib can fail if the library is not writable? Thanks for the pointer. > When I look more closely at this, I see in li

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

If you do change how this is implemented in the config* files, please make sure that you still support cross compiling to Darwin. In that case, the runtime libraries for the target would still run into this issue, because you'd be using the Darwin ranlib, even on a Linux build/host. Shantonu

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pinski) wrote on 31.08.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> Does anyone disagree (and if not, have suggestions how to address this > >> in GCC)? > > > > ranlib is basic

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Should that be: old_postinstall_cmds="$old_postinstall_cmds~\$RANLIB \$oldlib" ?? Yes, I believe so (both CVS HEAD and branch-1-5). Unless there exists ranlib's that change file mode.. Okay, the attached pathces are applied to libtool HEAD and branch-1-5. Thank you, P

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pinski) wrote on 31.08.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > If you consider Darwin "modern", then that statement is not correct > > as moving/copying an archive on darwin, requires ranlib to be run. > > Is there a point to this

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

On Sep 1, 2005, at 4:10 PM, Joe Buck wrote: On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 12:16:23PM +0900, Peter O'Gorman wrote: I would suggest continuing to run ranlib after install, but not failing if it does not work. Won't you then get warning messages on Darwin every time someone tries to use the installe

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 12:16:23PM +0900, Peter O'Gorman wrote: > I would suggest continuing to run ranlib after install, but not failing if > it does not work. Won't you then get warning messages on Darwin every time someone tries to use the installed library (since the symbol table timestamp wil

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

i think Peter's point is: if mode(archive) == 444 if target == Darwin Darwin ranlib will upgrade it to 644 anyway and succeed, and/or use a temp file and rename(2) else ranlib isn't really needed anyway, so ignore the error fi else ranlib should be used, and should succeed, but

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Pinski wrote: |> Won't you then get warning messages on Darwin every time someone tries |> to use the installed library (since the symbol table timestamp will be |> older than the file timestamp)? | | | It will not be a warning on darwin, it wi

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) wrote on 01.09.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pinski) wrote on 31.08.05 in > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > If you consider Darwin "modern", then that statement is not correct > > > as movi

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

> "Andrew" == Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> So I think the best way to address this is to not run ranlib. Andrew> If you consider Darwin "modern", then that statement is not correct Andrew> as moving/copying an archive on darwin, requires ranlib to be run. Can't we install the

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes: > ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) wrote on 01.09.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > a.out archives used to work this way too, e.g. on SunOS 4. The idea > > was that people would often use ar without updating the symbol table. > > Thus the symbol table ha

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) wrote on 02.09.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes: > > > ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) wrote on 01.09.05 in > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > a.out archives used to work this way too, e.g. on SunOS 4. The idea > > > was that

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gerald Pfeifer wrote: | We currently perform the following sequence of commands as part of the | installation (-m 444 being the default on current FreeBSD systems). | I can not see where freebsd could be getting a -m 444 from. The libraries are alway

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Peter O'Gorman wrote: > Another alternative would be to set RANLIB=: before configure if your > system does not need to ranlib anything. Thanks for the nice hint - this is what the FreeBSD Ports Collection now uses for the lang/gcc34 to lang/gcc41 ports. ;-) On Fri, 2 Sep 200

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Peter O'Gorman wrote: >| We currently perform the following sequence of commands as part of the >| installation (-m 444 being the default on current FreeBSD systems). > I can not see where freebsd could be getting a -m 444 from. The libraries > are always installed with INSTALL_

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Peter O'Gorman wrote: | We currently perform the following sequence of commands as part of the | installation (-m 444 being the default on current FreeBSD systems). I can not see where freebsd could be getting a -m 444 from. The libraries are always ins

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

On Sep 29, 2005, "Peter O'Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I posted a patch that nobody has had time to look at for this, even if > it is not acceptable (it would probably be better if it reset the > permissions after calling ranlib) I'd appreciate some feedback :) >

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Sep 29, 2005, "Peter O'Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I posted a patch that nobody has had time to look at for this, even if it is not acceptable (it would probably be better if it reset the permissions after calling ranlib) I'd appreciate some feedback :)