Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	"Jon Leichter" <jon AT symas DOT com>
To:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
Cc:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: Potential problems with Cygwin GCC and -mno-cygwin switch
Date:	Thu, 27 Dec 2001 19:08:44 -0800
Message-ID:	<DLEBJKNCNLJEDKMKICHGIENLCAAA.jon@symas.com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To:	<04d501c18f4b$4b95eb40$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
Importance:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon Leichter" <jon AT symas DOT com>
> > > However , once gcc's specs are changedm linking with the libraries
> they
> > > provide will fail - which is what I was talking about.
> >
> > Hmm... I'm not sure why this would be the case. I have relocated my
> > libraries, and I have updated my specs file. Things work just fine for
> me
> > (or it seems). I wonder if you could elaborate your assertion with an
> > example. (I don't want to upset Chris Faylor - is this something we
> should
> > discuss off the mailing list?)
>
> It's an onlist topic.
> Because the two things have to happen concurrently. Cygwin has over a
> 100 packages, of which maybe 40 provide libraries that would need to be
> relocated. The mechanism for relocation is quite simple: every package
> maintainer repackages their package with the libraries in the new
> location.

I think I understand what you're saying now. The wording in your previous
email threw me off.

I'm not sure the two things have to happen concurrently. If the GCC specs
file were to change first, then GCC would start looking in /usr/lib/cygwin,
and it would continue to look in (the hard-coded path) /usr/lib, where old
package libraries would still reside.

Also, I'm not sure that all packages need to be relocated. Just the ones
that place files in /usr/lib. There is no problem with a package that places
files in a subdirectory of /usr/lib.

At this point, this conversation is purely hypothetical... :)
I really don't think 100 packages should should be re-packaged...

Jon


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -