[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Darwin patches?
Re: Darwin patches?
Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:09:33 -0500 (CDT)
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Max Horn wrote:
> > > The reason is,
> >> [drawin1.[0-2]]] is a bit behind, since Darwin is at 1.4.1 as of October
> >> 1st. Although < 1.4.0 is a major change in some instances, although not
> >> so much with libtool.
> There is a good reason for this check - it *deliberatly* checks for
> darwin 1.0 - 1.2, because those are different in many aspects from
> 1.3/1.4. Those are handled in other places, though.
I think a portion of the problem, is that the full patches don't live at
home yet, which had me patching before I found all the other patches. I
noticed only 1.0..1.2 in the changelog, which didn't exist in other
places. The PPC linux kernel is basically the same.
I have now seen the light :-)
> > >
> >> I asked the Darwin group why they are just local to the filesystem.
> >Okay. Keep us posted.
> >There is one patch against libtool for the benefit of Darwin, that I
> >have had to rejected because it causes regressions for most other
> >platforms. You should be able to find the thread in the list archives.
> That patch is actually bad even on darwin. As Christoph Pfisterer and
> I posted here various time (but sadly, there never was a reply),
> there seems to be a bit more fundamental libtool issue regarding
> conveniance libs. The -all_load flag just doesn't do it, and libtool
> has this habit of listing convenience libs twice on the command line
> used to invoke the linker, causing loads of "multiple definitions"
Ok, cdemo tests fail. What are the requirements from admin for
modification to cdemo if needed? Sorry I have to ask, sometimes people
have various reasons for not allowing specific modifications.
> >Also there is a long standing problem with the way zsh echo handles
> >backslashes that I haven't had the time to look into. Fixing this
> >would make life for libtool on darwin a whole lot easier...