[Libsigcx-main] Re: [PATCH] libsigcx-0.6.4 build fixes for Cygwin, older libtools

[Andreas R. <a.r...@gm...>]

Steven Brown <sw...@uc...> writes:

> Hello, I've made a few fixes to libsigcx-0.6.4 to get it building on
> Cygwin with shared libraries (DLLs), and from CVS with older libtools
> (E.g., on Debian Woody).  Seems pretty healthy - can this get added to
> CVS?  
>
I've switched away from CVS some time ago. The current version of
libsigcx is in my GNU Arch archive[0]. I should probably wipe out CVS
and put a pointer to the Arch archive in there.

[0] http://yi.org/rotty/Software#gnuarch

FYI, am not *actively* developing libsigcx anymore, but patches are
always welcome.

> ChangeLog from the attached patch:
>
[...]
> 	* sigcx/Makefile.am: Add -no-undefined to the LDFLAGS of the
> 	shared libraries as Windows DLLs can't deal with undefined
> 	symbols - sigcx doesn't depend on having them, anyway.
>
I'm not sure about this one; I know that -no-undefined is needed for
MinGW and Cygwin, but do you have any reference that explains why it
doesn't hurt on other platforms?

Other than that, the patch looks good. Thanks!

Regards, Rotty
-- 
Andreas Rottmann         | Rotty@ICQ      | 118634484@ICQ | a.r...@gm...
http://yi.org/rotty      | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62
v2sw7MYChw5pr5OFma7u7Lw2m5g/l7Di6e6t5BSb7en6g3/5HZa2Xs6MSr1/2p7 hackerkey.com

A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?