libtool-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Libtool head: Path translation issue on MinGW


From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: Libtool head: Path translation issue on MinGW
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:37:51 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

Hi Peter,

* Peter Ekberg wrote on Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 02:26:19PM CEST:
> * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 14:05 CEST:
> > * Peter Ekberg wrote on Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 10:59:23AM CEST:
> 
> > Side question: have you tested 'gcc -mno-cygwin' on cygwin much?
> > I've tried it once, but I believe I need other settings as well to
> > make it work smoothly.  --host?  I'm planning on eventually testing
> > this one thoroughly, too, though.  I know people use it.
> 
> Not much, no. Sorry...

OK.  We should check that we at least did not regress on this one
(at least before the next release).

> > Looks good, please apply this one, with the really minor spelling nit
> > below.  Could you, by the way, backport this into branch-1-5?
> 
> Ok, applied to head and backported to 1.5, but commit in 1.5 didn't
> find sendmail so I think no notification was mailed out to
> libtool-commit.

That's fine.  Since commit mails are generated on server side again, you
don't want those extra mails out either.  For some time they were turned
off.  Also, this notification feature is used (by Gary, I believe) to
send another copy of the actual applied patch (`FYI') to
libtool-patches, not libtool-commit.

I do commits to branch-1-5 with
  ./commit -s '' -1
to avoid the script trying to send anything.  For HEAD I use `-r'.

> > Hey, we didn't invent stresstest just to please itself, these are
> > all bugs in libtool proper, just more or less rarely exposed.  Our
> > docs do not state that the output file name must not be an absolute
> > path, and as such, it should work to use an absolute path.  Agreed,
> > this one is not very likely to be hit by users.
> 
> I know, it's just that there's the following little passage in
> HACKING :-)
> 
> * If a change fixes a test, mention the test in the ChangeLog entry.

Oh, OK.  I forgot about this one.  But anyway I did not mean you should
not mention it, it just sounded like it was done for this sole purpose.
:-)

Cheers,
Ralf




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]