X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<49C07781.1090702@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:24:33 +0000
From:	Dave Korn <dave DOT korn DOT cygwin AT googlemail DOT com>
User-Agent:	Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: under cygwin, zsh cannot run when built against ncurses9-5.7-13
References:	<20a807210903131414g62e0a53cyefd3938c3fe8af33 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <49BADAC1 DOT 80709 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> <gpf7kk$2g6$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org> <gpfcdo$a30$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org> <gpgeu9$iuo$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org> <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 64 DOT 0903142203230 DOT 9859 AT gremlin DOT fruitbat DOT org> <49BF1770 DOT 9020007 AT gmail DOT com> <49C00B83 DOT 8050302 AT gmail DOT com> <20090317222721 DOT GB1505 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
In-Reply-To:	<20090317222721.GB1505@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>  I don't know what it's all about yet, but as far as I can tell, they aren't
>> suitable for use outside the actual build system itself and should probably
>> not need to be installed.  It would probably be better if they were replaced
>> by symlinks to libcygwin.a, as is done for libg.a.
> 
> Sheesh.  Do you honestly think I would have gone to the effort of
> creating these libraries when a simple symlink would suffice?  Do you
> really think I don't know about symlinks?

  Uh, why do you think I have any idea who wrote what code or how much
historical cruft there might or might not be in the makefile?  When I'm
looking at stuff with a lot of legacy behind it I try not to make assumptions
about what is deliberate and what accidental except in the most blindingly
obvious cases.  I assume it's deliberate that the Makefile builds libc and
libm and uses them in linking the DLL.  I don't assume it's necessarily
deliberate that they get installed.  I have seen examples in the past of auto*
based makefiles that installed more than they should have done solely by
accident of history and evolution.

  So what are libc.a and libm.a for?

    cheers,
      DaveK


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -