This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [ITP, take 2] Re: [ITP] libelf
Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> Actually, you need to add an explicit --enable-compat, otherwise
> whenever you need to roll the next version/release, it will see <gelf.h>
> and <libelf.h> present (from this release) and default to DO_COMPAT=no
> to avoid overwriting them (for fear they are libc headers).
ROFL, of course - good catch!
> Then add these basenames to PATCH_URI. (This is how I manage all my
> patches nowadays.) This avoids the problem because the patch is applied
> to origsrc/ before it is copied into src/. Also this way, you don't
> also have to rename the patch for every version even if the patch itself
> still applies as is with the new version (as it often does).
Thanks, I had noticed that pattern before but didn't know the details.
> Because I didn't try building gcc with my libelf. :-) But if gcc needs
> SHN_XINDEX, why not just add the #define to our <sys/elf_common.h>?
Because GCC needs everything else in libelf, in particular the functions,
not just the #defines, so I wanted it all to come from one nice consistent source.
> In libelf0/setup.hint, libgcc1 is missing from requires:.
>
> With that and an explicit --enable-compat to cygconf, GTG.
Thanks, I'll fix those and then upload it myself in the next day or two.
(Unless anyone wants me to post it here for a final review, in which case just
ask.)
> HTH,
Certainly did! Merry christmas :)
cheers,
DaveK