This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps 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: Observation for ALL maintainers who provide dlls (was Re: question for perl maintainer)

Gerrit P. Haase wrote:

Doesn't libtool always defines --image-base when building a DLL, or is
this only with ancient libtool versions?

only ancient versions did this. Versions of libtool that are merely immensely old defined '--enable-auto-image-base'. No version in the lasts three years or so defined either flag.

The ancient-to-old transition of --image-base=FIXED to --enable-auto-image-base makes sense. But the old-to-recent transition, removing the --enable-auto-image-base flag entirely, doesn't. I'm not sure why that was done.

I vaguely remember somebody more knowledgeable (Danny? cgf? Mumit?) than I suggesting that --e-a-i-b was a bad default choice -- but I don't remember who or why, and I can't find it in the archives.

For what it's worth, there was a recent patch to libtool-CVS-HEAD to turn 'on' --enable-auto-image-base for mingw.


P.S. I have no strong feelings on this issue, other than my vague recollection above, so I'll go along with the consensus when one emerges. However, I'm not going to (a) change my build procedures PRIOR to that consensus, nor (b) delay the release of any DLL-providing packages until one emerges. Hence, my release yesterday of non-e-a-i-b DLLs for zlib & bz2.

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