On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Roth, Kevin P. wrote:

> I need to have the following changes made to support cygwin builds:
>
>
> 1. The shared library (cygcurl-2.dll) is no longer being built...
> Just to make sure it wasn't a problem with my build environment,
> I tried re-building version 7.9.8 - it still works there.
>
> It appears the difference is the absence of "-no-undefined" from
> lib/Makefile.am. Could you change the following line? This change
> appears to correct the problem.
>
> @@ -19 +19 @@
> -libcurl_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info 2:2:0
> +libcurl_la_LDFLAGS = -no-undefined -version-info 2:2:0

Can you verify this somehow? I had to remove this in order for some people to
manage to build with OpenSSL shared libraries properly, since it contains
undefined symbols. I'd hate to make this option differ between platforms,
especially when I don't know exactly which platforms that want this and which
that don't want it! ;-(

> 2. I am splitting off the developer-related parts of the normal
> binary cygwin package into a "-devel" package. Please change
> the uploads page so I can upload a file named like:
> ^curl-devel-([0-9.]*)-(d*)-cygwin.tar.bz2
>
> While you're at it, please change the following masks:
> Old: ^curl-([0-9.]*)-(d*)-nossl-cygwin.tar.bz2
> New: ^curl-([0-9.]*)-(d*)-cygwin-nossl.tar.bz2
>
> Old: ^curl-([0-9.]*)-(d*)-src-cygwin.tar.bz2
> New: ^curl-([0-9.]*)-(d*)-cygwin-src.tar.bz2

Ok, I've made sure that these new patterns are recognized (too) now.

> If you'd like to rename the old versions (7.9.6, 7.9.8)
> to match the new model, that's fine too.

Hm, I don't think I'll do that. At least not for now, it'll just cause a lot
of extra traffic to all the mirrors. They'll vanish in history soon enough
anyway.

> 3. Apply the attached patch to my cygwin Makefile. It will
> permit me to automatically build the cygwin packages
> (both devel and standard), plus it no longer strips the
> DLL (which was requested by the cygwin folks).

Applied and committed.

> As I'm guessing a 7.10.1 will come out real soon (correct me if I'm
> wrong please),

I'm not so sure about that. I've received no really serious bug report on
7.10 as of yet, so I see no immediate reason to rush another release just
yet.

I think the reason might also be related to the fact that we currently have
no binary/install packages of 7.10 at all, which tend to make the
distribution more limited and thus less used.

-- 
 Daniel Stenberg -- curl related mails on curl related mailing lists please
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf