Re: [Bug-gnubg] Win32 builds - new set of DLL

[Holger]

At 02:40 02.07.2003 +0200, Øystein Johansen wrote:
> Holger wrote:
> > And with the last 3 libraries start the problems I've mentioned earlier 
> > in another post. See below at the end.
>
> Yes, I see your point here... I'll make a suggestion at the end.

I didn't see any suggestion, and I still have the same problem.

> > > (I think I will start providing readline support to the gnubg-no-gui 
> > > version. I'm not sure where I'll take the library from.)

Could you send me your config.h and Makefile for the non-GUI version? I'm 
curious. ;)

> > For practical value I install more packages under MinGW than described so 
> > far. Among others these are fileutils, diffutils, findutils, grep, ssh 
> > and more. Already the most basic "rm" (which I use in my Makefiles) from 
> > fileutils requires libintl-2.dll .
> > So if I don't want to install the necessary libraries I can't use those 
> > packages, which is out of choice. Thus, we need a different solution. Any 
> > proposals?
>
> Yes, I see this problem. Why didn't I see this before? Simply because I 
> used this set of Unix tools: http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/
> Thay may be a bit  outdated, but I havn't had any problems with'em. That's 
> why I didn't see the problem. I also used to use libraries from this site: 
> http://mingwrep.sourceforge.net/ which is also a bit outdated.

The latter project is obviously inactive, for which I try to avoid it.

> I still think we should build our binaries based iconv.dll and 
> libintl-1.dll  from Tor's site. It's just so sick to have two differrent 
> versions of the same library for the same application.

I neither like two versions of a library, but I like even less to not use 
the packages from GnuWin32. Or are you suggesting to use one of the above 
projects? To be honest: I don't like the idea.

Regards,

        Holger