* Peter Rosin wrote on Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 09:11:51AM CEST:
Den 2008-08-31 07:29, skrev Ralf Wildenhues:
thank you for starting a new thread on this. The other, monster thread,
scares me a bit too much for wanting to dig through it.
Should I repost the pending patches as new fresh individual
messages?
That would certainly help. Even cooler would be if you posted a link to
the post of the patch within the thread too, so I could read myself up
from there. (When reviewing, I try to at least skim the discussion
pertaining to a thread, in order to check that the discussed issues have
been addressed.) Up to you if you want to take the effort though.
* Peter Rosin wrote on Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:26:45PM CEST:
During my exercise with libsndfile I found a problem with
the manifest embedding code. $output may or may not contain
the trailing $EXEEXT, so the code in $postlink_cmds has
to handle both cases (or some c14n has to be added to ltmain).
Is this really a problem with the libtool variable exeext not being set
correctly, or with the libtool script being passed '-o prog' vs. '-o
prog.exe'?
The patch solves the latter, i.e. '-o prog' vs. '-o prog.exe'. I
have not seen any problem with exeext not being correct.
Hmm, ok.
If it's a problem with exeext not being set correctly, then shouldn't we
fix that? Markus Duft posted a patch for that on this list before,
which I've never found the time to evaluate.
Also, this needs testsuite exposure if not already done.
By "this", I assume you mean a check if both '-o prog' and
"-o prog$EXEEXT" work?
Yes. At least if such a test is easily possible.
Should that test do what is needed to
expose a failure to embed the manifest? I.e. do you want the
test to install both progs and then try to run them?
If a runtime test is the only way to find out if things went alright,
then I guess that would be best. In this case the test should ensure
to SKIP for cross compilation. It's also OK to SKIP the test generally
when CL is not used, I guess.