Re: sysroot support in libtool

2008-04-13 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Richard Purdie wrote on Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 12:42:04AM CEST: > On Sun, 2008-04-13 at 22:26 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > tag.patch - The tag errors were breaking things for no good reason so we > > > turned the error into a warning > > > > Well, don't come crying for bad performance to

Re: sysroot support in libtool

2008-04-13 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 13 April 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Richard Purdie wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 08:53:10PM CEST: > > The patches we're using are publicly available as: > > http://svn.o-hand.com/view/poky/trunk/meta/packages/libtool/libtool-1.5.1 > >0/ > > uclibc.patch - Tweaks to libtool.m4 to sup

Re: sysroot support in libtool

2008-04-13 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 13 April 2008, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > On 13 Apr 2008, at 07:55, Richard Purdie wrote: > > [1] Are there any plans to support sysroots with libtool? > > No one is sending us bug reports or patches... so we don't even know > there is a problem! that's not true ... there have been people

Re: don't let libtool infer the tag (was: sysroot support in libtool)

2008-04-13 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 13 April 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:26:11PM CEST: > > * Richard Purdie wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 08:53:10PM CEST: > > > tag.patch - The tag errors were breaking things for no good reason so > > > we turned the error into a warning

Re: sysroot support in libtool

2008-04-13 Thread Richard Purdie
On Sun, 2008-04-13 at 22:26 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Richard Purdie wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 08:53:10PM CEST: > > > > The patches we're using are publicly available as: > > http://svn.o-hand.com/view/poky/trunk/meta/packages/libtool/libtool-1.5.10/ > > Let's take a look at the simpl

don't let libtool infer the tag (was: sysroot support in libtool)

2008-04-13 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:26:11PM CEST: > * Richard Purdie wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 08:53:10PM CEST: > > > > tag.patch - The tag errors were breaking things for no good reason so we > > turned the error into a warning > > Well, don't come crying for bad performance to

Re: sysroot support in libtool

2008-04-13 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Richard Purdie wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 08:53:10PM CEST: > > The patches we're using are publicly available as: > http://svn.o-hand.com/view/poky/trunk/meta/packages/libtool/libtool-1.5.10/ Let's take a look at the simple ones: > nmedit_fix.patch - Call host-triplet-nmedit, not just "nmed

Re: sysroot support in libtool

2008-04-13 Thread Richard Purdie
Hi Ralf, On Sun, 2008-04-13 at 17:09 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Richard Purdie wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 04:59:26PM CEST: > > > > * the person who integrated libtool into OE has moved onto other things > > and the knowledge for a lot of the "magic" was lost > > * we're stuck on an ol

Re: _lt_libltdl_LTX_preloaded_symbols in consistence.

2008-04-13 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
[ re-adding libtool list in Cc: ] * Steven Wu wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 06:43:59PM CEST: > > In libguile/.libs/guileS.o > $ nm -p libguile/.libs/guileS.o > 0224 S _lt_preloaded_symbols > > this doesn't seem to be correct. Ah ok, thanks. That means that linking of guile is done by libtool

Re: _lt_libltdl_LTX_preloaded_symbols in consistence.

2008-04-13 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hello Steve, please do not top-post, thank you. * Steven Wu wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 06:20:10PM CEST: > On Apr 13, 2008, at 1:14 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> * Steven Wu wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 07:34:13AM CEST: >>> | >>> | (cd .libs && gcc -g -O2 -c -fno-builtin "guileS.c") >>> | rm

Re: _lt_libltdl_LTX_preloaded_symbols in consistence.

2008-04-13 Thread Steven Wu
It was _lt__PROGRAM__LTX_preloaded_symbols, however, in libltdl.a, it was _lt_libltdl_LTX_preloaded_symbols. That is why I changed the name in ltdl.h. here: $ nm libltdlS.o U _dlopen_LTX_get_vtable 02c0 S _lt_libltdl_LTX_preloaded_symbols and nm libltdl.a ... nm libltdlS.o

Re: sysroot support in libtool

2008-04-13 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hello Richard, * Richard Purdie wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 04:59:26PM CEST: > > * the person who integrated libtool into OE has moved onto other things > and the knowledge for a lot of the "magic" was lost > * we're stuck on an old version of libtool (1.5.10) which we know you > won't be

Re: sysroot support in libtool

2008-04-13 Thread Richard Purdie
Hi, On Sun, 2008-04-13 at 08:21 -0400, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > On 13 Apr 2008, at 07:55, Richard Purdie wrote: > > [1] Are there any plans to support sysroots with libtool? > > No one is sending us bug reports or patches... so we don't even know > there is a problem! Ok, there are some fairly l

Re: moving to git

2008-04-13 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 03:36:46PM CEST: > On 13 Apr 2008, at 08:42, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> I can try to adjust my filter-branch script to rewrite those commits >> that have an empty CVS log message, to use the ChangeLog diff. >> That should help, so I'll try this. > > If

Re: moving to git

2008-04-13 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Andreas, * Andreas Schwab wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 03:29:17PM CEST: > There is a commit with a strange address: > > commit 1e0e23c70dbbf7f62bd0a19fdd5730493c08f833 > Author: Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon Jul 14 22:51:59 2003 + > > * libtool.m4 (_LT_AC_LOCK): Al

Re: moving to git

2008-04-13 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
On 13 Apr 2008, at 08:42, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Hi Gary, Hallo Ralf! * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 02:09:58PM CEST: 1. Thomas Tanner has many many commits with no message. If we ever decide to move to generating a ChangeLog from the commit log, we'll lose a lot of in

Re: moving to git

2008-04-13 Thread Andreas Schwab
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now, before we set all things in stone, we'd like to avoid any hard > feelings as long as things can still be fixed: The conversion causes, > among others, several people to be listed with several email addresses. There is a commit with a strange add

Re: moving to git

2008-04-13 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Gary, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 02:09:58PM CEST: > > I see some anomalies in the commit log, though I don't know whether they > are correctly ported CVS anomalies, or indicative of actual errors in > the conversion. These lists are not exhaustive, just selected > exampl

sysroot support in libtool

2008-04-13 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Hi Richard, On 13 Apr 2008, at 07:55, Richard Purdie wrote: [1] Are there any plans to support sysroots with libtool? No one is sending us bug reports or patches... so we don't even know there is a problem! Cheers, Gary -- ())_. Email me: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( '/

Re: moving to git

2008-04-13 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
On 13 Apr 2008, at 04:09, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Hello libtool list readers, Hallo Ralf, the repository for Libtool is moving to git. This means that shortly, the CVS repository will become unusable. It may receive one more commit, removing all files and adding a pointer to the new git repo

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

2008-04-13 Thread Richard Purdie
Josh Triplett freedesktop.org> writes: > Thus, I wrote Dolt, a drop-in replacement for libtool's compilation > mode. Dolt runs any necessary system-specific or > configuration-specific logic as part of configure, writes out a simple > shell script "doltcompile"[1], and substitutes it for libtool

Re: _lt_libltdl_LTX_preloaded_symbols in consistence.

2008-04-13 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Steven Wu wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 07:34:13AM CEST: > | > | (cd .libs && gcc -g -O2 -c -fno-builtin "guileS.c") > | rm -f .libs/guileS.c .libs/guile.nm .libs/guile.nmS .libs/guile.nmT > | gcc -D_THREAD_SAFE -g -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Werror > | .libs/guileS.o -D_THREAD_SAFE -o .libs

moving to git

2008-04-13 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hello libtool list readers, the repository for Libtool is moving to git. This means that shortly, the CVS repository will become unusable. It may receive one more commit, removing all files and adding a pointer to the new git repo. We redid the conversion from CVS to git, in comparison to the p