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
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 20:02:22 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-rcm AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: getopt: ugly linker messages
Message-ID: <20030921000222.GA17518@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20030920232724 DOT GB17101 AT redhat DOT com> <000401c37fd1$0d5ce4f0$0100000a AT PCHOMEISW>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <000401c37fd1$0d5ce4f0$0100000a@PCHOMEISW>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 01:43:54AM +0200, Ivan Warren wrote:
>>Sigh.  By "research", I meant dive into the binutils code and figure
>>out what is going wrong.
>
>Geez..  You kidding me ?  I mean, I wouldn't mind doing that..

Are you not a native English speaker or are you just trolling now?

This is what I said:

"Apparently, no one knows the answer to your question and, apparently,
no one is interested in researching the problem for you."

In this context, it is clear what I was saying.  I was saying that no
one *else* wanted to *debug* your problem.  I wasn't saying "You do it",
even though, realistically speaking, that is probably your best
alternative.

(and now here comes another round of "I've already worked so hard and I
don't know nothing about no binutils"...)

>>You already posted to the binutils mailing list, remember?
>
>Yeah..  Of course I do remember that..  (not senile yet ;-) )..  But
>unfortunatelly, I made the same mistake I did here : I told them I
>*DID* post in the other forum.  Thus leading to the effect that each
>list thinks it's a problem that is in the other group field of
>expertise.

You're assuming here.  This is obviously a binutils issue.  The fact
that no one responded to it, is very likely the same reason that no
one responded here.

>So my option is now to tell the binutils folks that the cygwin folks
>are declaring this issue to be a binutils core issue and that it has
>nothing to do with cygwin (although it does affect it)..  Am I correct
>?

I would assume that anyone in the binutils mailing list who saw errors
with import libraries would not assume "Aha! It's obviously a problem
with the Cygwin DLL! I don't have to worry about this one".  So, anyone
who was interested in this problem would already be clear on where the
fault lies from your original message.

Just to be clear: I do provide the binutils package to the cygwin
community but I don't have the time or inclination to track the problem
down.  There are a few people reading the binutils mailing list who are
more facile with the code than I.  They are, of course, also volunteers.

--
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/