Re: Trying to run 2.1a test suite

2004-11-24 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Jeff, * Jeff Squyres wrote on Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 08:12:43PM CET: I'm working on the Portland Group compilers patch for both the libtool CVS HEAD and the 1-5 branch (both are attached), and as suggested, am trying to run the make check test suite against the CVS HEAD (it passes on the

RFC: proposal for indirect deplibs

2004-11-24 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
This is a draft on how to proceed with the link_all_deplibs problem. The idea is to expose the complexity portably to the user. The rationale is that people get bitten by this complexity anyway, so there is little gain in hiding it. At the same time, systems without needed-following linker should

Re: RFC: proposal for indirect deplibs

2004-11-24 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote on Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 11:53:25AM CET: Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [definitions] my head is already swimming because dependent, dependency and dependence all are very subtly different and have different meanings in different contexts. OK. Let's

Re: Trying to run 2.1a test suite

2004-11-24 Thread Jeff Squyres
Ah -- excellent! I think someone said this (work in the branch-2-0 branch), but I ignored it and worked on the trunk because I foolishly assumed that they were effectively the same (note to self: your own development practices are not the same as everyone else's! ;-) ). On Nov 24, 2004, at

Patches for Portland Group (aka pgi) compiler support

2004-11-24 Thread Jeff Squyres
(I figured I'd start this in a different thread so that it would be easy to find when searching; the patches are identical to what I submitted before, but in the interest of tying this all up in one thread...) I've attached 2 patches to libtool.m4 -- one for branch-1-5 and one for branch-2-0

Re: Trying to run 2.1a test suite

2004-11-24 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:18:14PM CET: Ah -- excellent! I think someone said this (work in the branch-2-0 branch), but I ignored it and worked on the trunk because I foolishly assumed that they were effectively the same We are in the process of rewriting the testsuite.

[support #100058] 1.4 - $buildir-path may not contain ~

2004-11-24 Thread Peter O'Gorman
This mail is an automated notification from the support tracker of the project: GNU Libtool. /**/ [support #100058] Latest Modifications: Changes by: Peter O'Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Date:

Re: [support #100058] 1.4 - $buildir-path may not contain ~

2004-11-24 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Hi Peter, Not meaning to seem overly pedantic, but could you enumerate the release(s) you tested when you decided that it was safe to close this? Also, it seems like it would a good item to put into TODO (when you summarise the hideous TODO thread) that we should add a regression test to the new

cvs commit messages

2004-11-24 Thread Peter O'Gorman
Hi, I again managed to make a commit and forgot to do it properly (so no mail was sent to libtool-commits), so I filed a support request to get commit mails handled automatically again: https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?func=detailitemitem_id=103603 Peter -- Peter O'Gorman -

Re: [support #100058] 1.4 - $buildir-path may not contain ~

2004-11-24 Thread Peter O'Gorman
Gary V. Vaughan wrote: Hi Peter, Not meaning to seem overly pedantic, but could you enumerate the release(s) you tested when you decided that it was safe to close this? Also, it seems like it would a good item to put into TODO (when you summarise the hideous TODO thread) that we should add a

Re: [support #100058] 1.4 - $buildir-path may not contain ~

2004-11-24 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Hi Peter! Peter O'Gorman wrote: Gary V. Vaughan wrote: Not meaning to seem overly pedantic, but could you enumerate the release(s) you tested when you decided that it was safe to close this? I fixed this particular bug with:

Re: cvs commit messages

2004-11-24 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Hi Peter, Peter O'Gorman wrote: I again managed to make a commit and forgot to do it properly (so no mail was sent to libtool-commits), so I filed a support request to get commit mails handled automatically again: https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?func=detailitemitem_id=103603 Okay, thanks.

[support #100058] 1.4 - $buildir-path may not contain ~

2004-11-24 Thread Peter O'Gorman
This mail is an automated notification from the support tracker of the project: GNU Libtool. /**/ [support #100058] Latest Modifications: Changes by: Peter O'Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Date:

FYI: Patches for Portland Group (aka pgi) compiler support

2004-11-24 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:31:26PM CET: (I figured I'd start this in a different thread so that it would be easy to find when searching; the patches are identical to what I submitted before, but in the interest of tying this all up in one thread...) Good idea. I've

Re: RFC: proposal for indirect deplibs

2004-11-24 Thread Jacob Meuser
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:05:50PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote on Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 11:53:25AM CET: Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [definitions] my head is already swimming because dependent, dependency and dependence all are very subtly

Buy Cia'lis softtabs, 1 day sale

2004-11-24 Thread Sonja Harvey
New ClALlS softtabs = lNSTANT R0CKHARD ERECTl0NS Simply disolve HALF A PlLL under your tongue 10min before action, for results that last all weekend. Normal retail is $19/PlLL 0rder from us today at the price of $3.33 not interested(0pt-0ut) ___

Relocatable libraries with libtool--can I do it?

2004-11-24 Thread Paul Smith
Hi all. I'm having a severe problem with libtool-ized packages, of which there are more and more these days, in my environment. I'm wondering if anyone here can suggest how I should proceed; whether there's something in libtool that will help me, or whether libtool needs enhancements, or what.

Re: RFC: proposal for indirect deplibs

2004-11-24 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Definitions: direct dependency: A program or library has a direct dependency on a library, if it depends on some interface that library provides, see node Interfaces for a more thorough description. More classifications should applied for direct

Re: RFC: proposal for indirect deplibs

2004-11-24 Thread Noah Misch
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 07:47:54PM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: direct dependency: A program or library has a direct dependency on a library, if it depends on some interface that library provides, see node Interfaces for a more thorough

Re: RFC: proposal for indirect deplibs

2004-11-24 Thread Noah Misch
This is a great document. A few comments -- On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:05:50PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: needed-following linker: A system with a needed-following linker has a means to record dependencies on other libraries within a library (based on the soname of the dependency