This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Trial plotutils packages again
- From: "James R. Phillips" <antiskid56-cygwin at yahoo dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 05:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: Trial plotutils packages again
- Reply-to: antiskid56-cygwin at yahoo dot com
--- Charles Wilson wrote:
>
> Showstopper: the DLL packages are not bzip'ed, but they are named as if
> they are. Once this is fixed, GTG.
>
Arrg. Sorry. Will fix shortly.
>
> However, this one is missing a few docs (NOT a showstopper; just note
> for the next release)
>
> +usr/share/doc/plotutils-2.4.1/COMPAT
> +usr/share/doc/plotutils-2.4.1/KNOWN_BUGS
> +usr/share/doc/plotutils-2.4.1/PROBLEMS
>
I'll check on it.
> This is to be expected, as you configured using --disable-static. It's
> your decision of course, but why the omission? (NOT a showstopper)
>
I just haven't been incorporating static libs into packages that build dlls. I
suppose they would provide additional flexibility for a developer, but it
subverts the purpose for providing/using dlls.
> Boy, after claiming to be an autotools novice you certainly weren't
> content to take my patches and run! <g> I am a little confused, tho: I
> found that with autoconf-2.59, I got too many warnings when
> re-autotooling unless I made the extensive changes you saw in my patch.
> Your patch to the two configure.in's is much simpler: are you using an
> older, less stringent autoconf, or are you just ignoring the warnings?
> (NOT a showstopper)
>
My initial attempts to use your patch were unsuccessful. In my search for a
successful approach, I picked up some patches from debian unstable, and
combined them with yours. I wouldn't claim though that the extra patches
solved the problem. I think what actually solved it was working through the
re-autotooling in a particular order, and forcing the use of the latest tools.
For some reason, automake kept wanting to use an older version, which errored
out. Eventually, after forcing a more recent version, it started working, and
I lost motivation to try to identify the exact issue involved. I think I tried
to send an e-mail describing this issue I had with the patch, but it appears
that web-mail garbled it.
> NOT a showstopper, but next time pls remove the URL; once packages have
> been adopted I delete them from the server so that link will be dead soon.
>
OK