* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:04:18PM CEST:
> * Maciej W. Rozycki wrote on Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 06:59:27PM CEST:
> >
> > The GCJ tag has old_archive_cmds omitted and as a result libtool cannot
> > create archive libraries for this configuration. A fix follows.
>
> Thanks fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
| Hi,
|
| Currently libtool's func_extract_archives removes the dir, then
| recreates it. It is breaking my forward port of Alexandre Oliva's patch
| to rename objects before putting them in the archive if there are name
| conflict
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 12:40:30PM CEST:
>
> But when a libtoolized package is configured as
> configure CC='distcc xlc' ..
> Libtool's tests break down[1].
FYI: Applied the following patches to all branches. Added purify for
convenience, and simplified the sed script,
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Well, you have AT_BANNER for headings, and AT_SETUP for groups of tests
and AT_CHECK for one command to test. I meant grouping under AT_BANNER.
But looking at how things are at the moment, maybe there is no need to
change that.
Other than that, maybe we can use AT_KEYWORDS t
Hi,
Currently libtool's func_extract_archives removes the dir, then recreates
it. It is breaking my forward port of Alexandre Oliva's patch to rename
objects before putting them in the archive if there are name conflicts.
Now, I could ensure that every time func_extract_archives is called it is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Applied to HEAD.
* looking for [EMAIL PROTECTED]/libtool--devo--1.0--patch-117 to compare with
* comparing to [EMAIL PROTECTED]/libtool--devo--1.0--patch-117
A {arch}/libtool/libtool--gary/libtool--gary--1.0/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]/patch-log/patch-2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Commited to HEAD.
* libltdl/configure.ac (AC_OUTPUT): loaders/Makefile is no longer
used.
- --
Gary V. Vaughan ())_. [EMAIL PROTECTED],gnu.org}
Research Scientist ( '/ http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker / )= ht
Hi Peter,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:16:21PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >FYI, I have applied the pending patch to branch-2-0, and the patch below
> >to HEAD. It uses the new testsuite, and sure again feels a little like
> >working around the limitations of Autotest.