On Monday 02 April 2001 2:31 am, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2001, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is fast becoming a large post-1.4 issue to my mind...
>
> What? Did you really mean to have this problem addresses in 1.4?
Yeah, I though it was going to be a simple
On Apr 1, 2001, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is fast becoming a large post-1.4 issue to my mind...
What? Did you really mean to have this problem addresses in 1.4? 1.4
doesn't even have piecewise linking, IIRC.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.un
On Monday 02 April 2001 12:49 am, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2001, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It seems that even if there are, there is little option but to do
> > platformwise duplicate removal if we are to avoid common problems with
> > command line lengths.
>
> Ye
On Apr 1, 2001, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have applied the following to HEAD (and similar to MLB).
Thanks
> Okay to release 1.3d?
Ok with me.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnu
On Apr 1, 2001, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 01 April 2001 3:59 pm, Michael Matz wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> > Certainly for modern UNIX architectures, however, I get the impression
>> > from Alexandre that there are platforms which do re
Hello.
On Sunday 01 April 2001 3:59 pm, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> > > I see. Argh, This then again means, that libtool will probably
> > > generate excessively large link commands for KDE.
> >
> > Yes it does =(O| Although ugly, Robert has applied the f
Hello.
On Sunday 01 April 2001 1:16 pm, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> > > > I have applied the following to HEAD (and similar to MLB).
> > >
> > > Why also MLB? Was it really broken there too? I ask, because I
> > > _definitely_ got multiple libraries in li
On Sunday 01 April 2001 11:50 am, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> > > >> Not really. We really must fix the bug that causes us to remove
> > > >> duplicate libraries before releasing 1.4.
> > > >
> > > > Huh? Seems like I'm missing something here. What
On Friday 30 March 2001 4:07 am, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2001, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 30 March 2001 2:23 am, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Not really. We really must fix the bug that causes us to remove
> >> duplicate libraries before releasing 1.4.
ot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:52 PM
> Subject: Re: ok, new libtool for cygwin updates
>
> > Hi edward,
> >
> > I have been snowed this week, but I plan to integrate the libtool p
On Friday 30 March 2001 4:07 am, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2001, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 30 March 2001 2:23 am, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Not really. We really must fix the bug that causes us to remove
> >> duplicate libraries before releasing 1.4.
On Mar 29, 2001, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 30 March 2001 2:23 am, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Not really. We really must fix the bug that causes us to remove
>> duplicate libraries before releasing 1.4.
> Huh? Seems like I'm missing something here. What is this
On Friday 30 March 2001 2:23 am, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2001, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Which reminds me... once this patch is in and working, I'd like to
> > release libtool-1.3d (probably over the weekend) and declare a feature
> > freeze in HEAD so that we c
ROTECTED]>
To: "edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: ok, new libtool for cygwin updates
> Hi edward,
>
> I have been snowed this week, but I plan to integrate the li
On Mar 29, 2001, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which reminds me... once this patch is in and working, I'd like to release
> libtool-1.3d (probably over the weekend) and declare a feature freeze in HEAD
> so that we can shake the bugs out and release 1.4 a week or two later.
>
Which reminds me... once this patch is in and working, I'd like to release
libtool-1.3d (probably over the weekend) and declare a feature freeze in HEAD
so that we can shake the bugs out and release 1.4 a week or two later.
Is that okay with everyone?
Then we can finally get on with the messy
to handle .exe extensions. I've enclosed *all of
> my changes* with respect to cvs libtool and automake.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, Marc
uot;Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: ok, new libtool for cygwin updates
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 04:08:14AM +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> >Your patch is brill
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 04:08:14AM +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>Your patch is brilliant. Thankyou.
Ditto. This patch is much appreciated. Thank you, Edward.
cgf
___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libto
Hi Edward,
Your patch is brilliant. Thankyou. I need to build a cygwin installation
before I can test it, but by inspection it looks fine to me. This stuff is
all I have left on my Libtool TODO list: As soon as we have it committed,
I'd like to make a candidate release for libtool-1.4 so t
20 matches
Mail list logo
