monotone-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: [ANN] monotone 0.44 released


From: Stephen Leake
Subject: Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: [ANN] monotone 0.44 released
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 08:57:42 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)

My computer was down for a while; I'm just catching up on emails.

Patrick Georgi <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 21.05.2009 22:38, schrieb Stephen Leake:
>
>> How do you accomplish this? The monotone Makefile builds a dynamically
>> linked executable.
>
> Simply by building the libraries with --disable-shared, and (in case
> of libidn which doesn't care about user wishes) moving the dll (and
> .dll.a) aside. The build automatically picks up the static
> libraries.

configure doesn't take option --disable-shared. Or at least, it
accepts that option, but it has no effect (I only tested this on
Debian; my Windows system needs to be rebuilt).

Where do you specify that option?

Manually moving the shared libraries isn't good; I hope we can find a
better way.

>> We should use the Makefile in the distribution, unmodified.
>
> I had to patch some source files (some #include and using std::
> statements, as usual - cleaned up patch will appear soon), but the
> build system was unchanged.

>> I don't know if Inno setup is intelligent enough to check for the
>> existence of the dlls, and only install the missing ones. Or to
>> install them in a better (shared) place. That's something we should
>> look into.
>
> shared place? unversioned shared libraries? Doesn't sound like a good
> idea to me.

This is a good point.

At work, I need to distribute mtn to several Red Hat machines. If some
of them are missing some libraries, it's a pain.

So it would be useful if configure (or the Makefile) supported a
--disable-shared option.

>> At the very least, the build instructions in INSTALL and win32/README
>> should be kept up to date, and produce the setup executable on
>> the website.
>
> Probably. In that case, I can't do it, as with shared libs, it doesn't
> build right (thanks to some mangling related to imported symbols)

I don't follow this. I think you are saying "the build instructions
for Win32 in INSTALL didn't work for me". Is that correct? Could you
provide more detail on what is broken?

-- 
-- Stephe




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]