Subject: Re: DLL problems with cygwin XEmacs binary kit
From: Andy Piper <[email-masked]>
To: "Charles S. Wilson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 01:41:41 +0000

Did this change post 1.1.4, since my installation differs from the one you 
describe?

andy

At 11:02 AM 11/6/00 -0500, Charles S. Wilson wrote:
>Andy Piper wrote:
> >
> > At 12:06 PM 11/2/00 -0500, Charles S. Wilson wrote:
> > >The XEmacs-21.1.12 binary kit for cygwin, available from
> > >http://www.xemacs.org/ or its mirrors, was compiled to use the 'old'
> > >cygwin dlls for libtiff, libjpeg, and libz.  Thus, if your system uses
> > >the latest cygwin versions of these packages, XEmacs will not work and
> > >will fail with the following message:
> >
> > I built the kit, I don't mind redoing it. I actually throught I had
> > compiled in static libs to avoid this sort of problem. I am uneasy about
> > compiling in dynamic libs for exactly these sort of reasons.
> >
> > What version of cygwin is new? I am using 1.1.4
>
>The current version of the cygwin package itself is 1.1.5-3, but many of
>the other packages have also been updated.  Just run 'setup.exe' and
>it'll update all the pieces to the latest version.
>
>You can force static linking by doing:
>   gcc -static (or ld -Bstatic) during the link step
>BUT you must also use -Dpkg_STATIC during the compile step, where pkg is
>one (or all) of:
>   -DZLIB_STATIC -DPNG_STATIC -DJBIG_STATIC -DJPEG_STATIC -DTIFF_STATIC
>-DGDBM_STATIC -DGETTEXT_STATIC
>
>each -Dpkg_STATIC turns off the dll-specific declspec declarations for
>the associated package.  If you want completely static linking, it's
>probably easiest to just set CFLAGS and LDFLAGS as above, and then
>configure as usual.
>
>However, Andy, since the packages above *are* part of the official
>distribution, they will (almost always) be available in a typical cygwin
>installation -- so the dll's will be there.  I do not anticipate another
>'name change' -- we did this as a proactive step to prevent DLL hell,
>and it should not be necessary to do another name change.  I think
>dynamic libs are a safe bet. Now.
>
>--Chuck

--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Andy Piper
Principal Consultant, BEA Systems Ltd

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to [email-masked]