alan_baa at hotmail.com
Fri Dec 19 06:57:13 PST 2008
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:16:37 -0800 Peter Naulls wrote:
> Jan-Jaap van der Geer wrote:
>> Some time ago I had some questions about getting the GCCSDK working
>> on cygwin. I have not yet managed to do that, but unfortunately
>> I have not been able to use much time on that project either.
>> The goal I was working towards was to try to see if I could get
>> glib to compile. Google told me it should be possible with 'little
>> But without the GCCSDK this will probably not be that easy.
>> According to
>> there already is a port for glib, at
>> http://www.riscos.info/downloads/unix-libraries/ but that link is
>> dead. Searching for glib on riscos.info does not help either.
>> Does anyone know if there is a somewhat more recent port? (2.12 or
>> later, I did find a 1.xx version somewhere...)
> glib is pretty straightforward, and indeed it is very easy to compile
> yourself - if you have GCCSDK, which I appreciate is is tricky
> upder Cygwin - this is still an open question, but you might like
> to retry with the much updated information.
> I haven't made any libraries releases in some time, due to ongoing
> development of static vs dynamic and packaging. Also because
> of upstream churn, it tends to be better to build your own if you
> are cross compiling.
> The libraries which Alan has packaged are much better presented
> than the "raw" files which I originally did, although the former
> doesn't presently include glib - although this is probably a minor
> matter to do.
I've added the packaging information and put up glib 1.2 on the
riscos info packaging website in case that is of any use.
I was having a look at glib2.0 and shared libraries so I'm not
going to be able to create a 2.x versions at the moment.
> As an aside, regarding John's recent change for dynamic vs static
> libraries; the only application that really needs dynamic right
> now is the development Firefox, and we could automatically choose
> dynamic for AB packages in the libraries section (since that will
> generally build static libraries too). This isn't 100%, but I
> think you'll in general be able to produce static binaries with
> this setup.
If the autobuilder can be set up to produce dynamic and static
libraries it would help me to look into packaging dynamic libraries.
The AB packages for libraries will consist of two parts the "...-dev"
with the headers and static libraries and without "-dev" which will
be the runtime libraries.
It won't hurt for the dynamic libraries to be created as a matter
of course as we can copy only the "-dev" with the static libraries
to the autobuilder website for now.
Are you a PC? Upload your PC story and show the world
More information about the gcc