On November 22, 2002 01:12 pm, Eric Pouech wrote:
> be aware anyway that in some cases we have both foo.dll and foo.drv
> (checkout msacm...) so import libs are the way
That's what Alexandre was saying too :) I've fund a way to work around
it for PuTTY, but we need to fix this as -lwinspool is ver
"Dimitrie O. Paun" a écrit :
>
> Alexandre,
>
> The winspool.drv issue is a lot more serious than the
> in-tree execution. This one screws things up badly for
> the PuTTY build system. Should we modify winebuild to
> try to link with winspool.drv, and if that fails with
> winspool.dll when -lwins
The winspool.drv issue is a lot more serious than the
in-tree execution. This one screws things up badly for
the PuTTY build system. Should we modify winebuild to
try to link with winspool.drv, and if that fails with
winspool.dll when -lwinspool is given? (or the other
way around, I don't know)
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The winspool.drv issue is a lot more serious than the
> in-tree execution. This one screws things up badly for
> the PuTTY build system. Should we modify winebuild to
> try to link with winspool.drv, and if that fails with
> winspool.dll when -lwins
Alexandre,
The winspool.drv issue is a lot more serious than the
in-tree execution. This one screws things up badly for
the PuTTY build system. Should we modify winebuild to
try to link with winspool.drv, and if that fails with
winspool.dll when -lwinspool is given? (or the other
way around, I don
