From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Cygwin patch for 1.6.4 Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:21:10 +0200 Organization: Jan at Appel Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87d6dgksux.fsf@peder.flower> References: <16225.62509.832674.84224@localhost.localdomain> <87u16s7mt4.fsf@peder.flower> <87d6dgbnjz.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1065079426 8702 80.91.224.253 (2 Oct 2003 07:23:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 07:23:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: hanwen@cs.uu.nl, guile-devel@gnu.org, mvo@zagadka.de Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 02 09:23:42 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1A4xoL-0002u5-01 for ; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:23:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1A4xmf-0001Fu-7m for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:21:57 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1A4xmZ-0001Em-PL for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:21:51 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1A4xm3-000191-Bp for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:21:50 -0400 Original-Received: from [62.195.48.83] (helo=peder.flower) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1A4xm2-00018b-Fd for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:21:18 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=peder.flower ident=janneke) by peder.flower with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1A4xly-0002yi-00; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:21:15 +0200 Original-To: Rob Browning In-Reply-To: <87d6dgbnjz.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> (Rob Browning's message of "Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:28:16 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:2838 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:2838 Rob Browning writes: > OK, so just to make sure I follow, this is a patch against 1.6.4, Yes, > it would be appropriate for the upcoming 1.6.5. Yes, > Further, if I'm going ot apply it to 1.6 before 1.6.5, I should > ignore the libool bits. > Did I get that right? Maybe, but I'm not sure what happens when you 'ignore the libtool bits'. What I meant to say whas that I'd like to have the libtool part of the patch in too, but that it makes the patch against 1.6.4 deceptively large. That's because I updated to libtool CVS. The new guile diffs against libtool, generated automagically in libguile-ltdl/upstream, are more readable, because they are very small. The fact that guile 1.6.x is no longer a standard libtoolized package (where the user can upgrade libtool with a single command if necessary) but ships a modified copy that needs some work to upgrade is what cost me most time. But maybe I missed something. Sorry for the confusion. Greetings, Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel