[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Make deplibs check fallback work for 64-bit Windows and Windows CE
From: |
Pierre Ossman |
Subject: |
Re: Make deplibs check fallback work for 64-bit Windows and Windows CE |
Date: |
Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:13:41 +0100 |
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:32:27 +0100
Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:
> [ dropping libtool@ ]
>
> Hi Pierre,
>
> thanks for the report and patch!
>
> * Pierre Ossman wrote on Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:01:40AM CET:
> > The "normal" check was fixed some time ago, but the fallback code was
> > overlooked. This patch fixes that as well.
>
> So that means you've encountered it with some code, on some system.
> Does your patch fix a testcase there, and if not, care to add (or
> describe) one?
>
My build system simply lacked the "file" command, so the fallback was
used. I've since added "file", but I figured I could be a good citizen
and fix the fallback in case anyone else stumbles upon it.
> Then, I'm seeing a small inconsistency between func_win32_libid and the
> libtool.m4 text (taken post-patch, but the inconsistency was there
> before):
>
> (pe-i386(.*architecture: i386)?|pe-arm-wince|pe-x86-64)
> (pei*-i386(.*architecture: i386)?|pe-arm-wince|pe-x86-64)
>
> Which one's right?
>
I have no idea why the latter looks the way it does. The latest
binutils gives an output matching the first line.
(also, the "architecture" part is on a separate line in current
binutils and not relevant for this expression)
I didn't dare change it in case it broke some old binutils people were
relying on.
> > Btw, why isn't the original fix (b5282894) in the 2.2.6b release?
>
> 2.2.6b was a pure security fix release and has only a couple of changes
> over 2.2.6a.
>
> > The fix is over one year old and still isn't in any released version.
>
> Yeah, that's because we've not been getting the current branch in
> release shape. Sorry for the inconvenience.
>
We run a custom libtool here, so I could apply the relevant fixes to
it. But it would be nice if we could point any other contributors to an
upstream version. Hopefully you'll be able to do a release in an not to
far off future. :)
> AFAICS copyright papers are not in place for you yet; more about this
> off-list (but please don't send more patch text until this is sorted
> out).
Correct. I've started the process and I'll get back to you once it is
done.
Rgds
--
Pierre Ossman OpenSource-based Thin Client Technology
System Developer Telephone: +46-13-21 46 00
Cendio AB Web: http://www.cendio.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature