This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: xerces-c, xerces-c-devel, xerces-c-doc 2.1.0-2 available for review/upload


Sorry about that guys...  I don't like making excuses, so I'll just blame it
on the hallucinogenic drugs :)  I'll have a -1 version back there soon and
I'll remove the -2 version.  It'll contain the fix for the problem with the
wrong dll (my tar.incl file still had the libxerces instead of cygxerces).
Also, Gareth mentioned that there is a one line fix patch for xerces-c
2.1.0.  I'd like to get that in as well if I can dig it up.

Charles,
To address the dll naming with the version inside (cygxerces-c2_1_0.dll), I
had some similar concerns when I started mucking with this package.  I had
decided not to change the dll name because xerces-c exports C++ types and
thought it to be a big mess if there wasn't some type of versioning embedded
in the name, which is probably why they did it this way (my assumption,
could be wrong).  At build time, there are three different libs to link
against (when xerces-c-devel is installed):
/usr/lib/libxerces-c2_1_0.dll.a
/usr/lib/libxerces-c.dll.a (symlink to libxerces-c2_1_0.dll.a)
/usr/lib/libxerces.dll.a (also symlink to libxerces-c2_1_0.dll.a)
 - the symlinks are created with a postinstall script

So if the hypothetical Bob wants to link with the most recent
cygwin-packaged xerces-c-devel on his machine and not have to
type -lxerces-c2_1_0 in his link line, he can instead type -lxerces-c
or -lxerces (Thanks Gerrit for the patch to make this happen).

Please let me have any feedback/complaints/concerns.  I'll get this new
package out later today... I've got a few issues at my day job to wrap up so
that I can spend the next three days at OOPSLA :)

thanks!
-Abe

----- Original Message -----
> I don't recall people bumping the -x numbers previously.  I don't see
> why that's necessary.  Theoretically, we are a small enough and
> intelligent enough group that we won't be confused when the contents of
> a file are updated without updating the file version.
>
> I think, in general, a new cygwin package should start out with a -1.
> It's hardly worth starting a long discussion about but, IMO, the -x
> numbers are incremented when there is a new cygwin release not when
> someone is providing packages for review.



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]