X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 20:08:33 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: All clear [was Re: [1.7]: For the love of god, don't update!] Message-ID: <20090406180833.GR852@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <49D97797 DOT 9080902 AT gmail DOT com> <49DA0FE6 DOT 6020603 AT gmail DOT com> <20090406141856 DOT GA19965 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <49DA244E DOT 3080401 AT gmail DOT com> <20090406162943 DOT GA8149 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20090406173354 DOT GA20463 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090406173354.GA20463@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-02-20) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 Apr 6 13:33, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 06:29:43PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >Wouldn't it help if libc.a, libm.a etc. wouldn't export any symbols at > >all? I mean, eventually there's libcygwin.a linked in which satisfies > >all of the requested symbols. What would break if the secondary libs > >pointing to cygwin1.dll would be stubs? > > We rehashed all of this years ago. IIRC, some configuration scripts > actually look for symbols explicitly in the libraries. Hmm, too bad. So it was a naive thought. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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/