X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:32:37 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: under cygwin, zsh cannot run when built against ncurses9-5.7-13
Message-ID: <20090318053237.GA31643@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
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> <49C07781 DOT 1090702 AT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <49C07781.1090702@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT 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

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 04:24:33AM +0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>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?

I did think that you understood how to use CVS to research things like
this, but, ok, so there was some historical ignoramus who worked on the
cygwin project and didn't understand how symlinks worked.

>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.

You made assumptions with your "it sould probably be better" suggestion.
The point is that it isn't usually profitable to automatically assume
that a problem would be trivially solved by an obvious solution.

>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.

Your reading of the Makefile is not right.  libc.a and libm.a from
newlib do get used in creating cygwin1.dll (obviously?).  There are
different libc.a, libm.a, libpthread.a, libutil.a, libdl.a, and
libresolv.a libraries which are all produced intentionally and have
nothing to do with the creation of the dll itself.

The initial discussion of the reason for these libraries started here:

http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2001-12/msg00705.html

cgf

--
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/