Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:53:28 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: ld --export-all, --exclude-libs,ALL
Message-ID:	<20011210165328.GA23801@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<20011122014016 DOT 60481 DOT qmail AT web14504 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> <20011210101918 DOT E740 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20011210101918.E740@cygbert.vinschen.de>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 10:19:18AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 22, 2001 at 12:40:16PM +1100, Danny Smith wrote:
>>Thanks all for your comments.  I have moved the discussion to here:
>>
>>http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2001-11/msg00570.html
>
>I found that the discussion of that feature on binutils wasn't really
>active.  Only Ralf Habacker has given his opinion in relation to
>libtool.  OTOH, this feature sounds rather interesting (after I
>understood what it's doing).  Should we try to push the discussion on
>binutils again?  Would there be a sense to move forward and release a
>Cygwin version of binutils adding that feature even if it's not in the
>base version?

I'm willing to do this.  Shall we vote?

cgf

- Raw text -