Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:22:30 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: All clear [was Re: [1.7]: For the love of god, don't update!]
Message-ID: <20090406212230.GB15228@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <49D97797 DOT 9080902 AT gmail DOT com> <49DA0FE6 DOT 6020603 AT gmail DOT com> <20090406141856 DOT GA19965 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <49DA244E DOT 3080401 AT gmail DOT com> <20090406162943 DOT GA8149 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20090406173354 DOT GA20463 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20090406180833 DOT GR852 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090406180833.GR852@calimero.vinschen.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 08:08:33PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Apr  6 13:33, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 06:29:43PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >Wouldn't it help if libc.a, libm.a etc. wouldn't export any symbols at
>> >all?  I mean, eventually there's libcygwin.a linked in which satisfies
>> >all of the requested symbols.  What would break if the secondary libs
>> >pointing to cygwin1.dll would be stubs?
>> 
>> We rehashed all of this years ago.  IIRC, some configuration scripts
>> actually look for symbols explicitly in the libraries.
>
>Hmm, too bad.  So it was a naive thought.

I think I had the same thought while resisting the whole concept of
speclib.

Maybe I should have resisted harder.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/