libtool-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]