develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from July 2016

Re: [rt.cpan.org #78395] Win32: Do not use dlltool to create DLLs

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
kmx
Date:
July 22, 2016 18:08
Subject:
Re: [rt.cpan.org #78395] Win32: Do not use dlltool to create DLLs
Message ID:
71e52afa-7765-5f05-4c07-2cc0cca13a31@atlas.cz
On 25.01.2016 19:18, Steve Hay via perl5-porters wrote:
> On 22 January 2016 at 18:31, Andy Grundman <andyg@activestate.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:34 AM, kmx <kmx@atlas.cz> wrote:
>>>
>>> Any chance to have these Win32 changes in perl 5.24.x?
>>>
>>> The p5p thread from August 2016:
>>> http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2015/08/msg230303.html
>>>
>>> There are also related tickets
>>> - EU::MM https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=78395
>>> - Perl::Dist::Strawberry
>>> https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=103782
>>
>> Thanks for bringing this issue up again. I'm Jan's successor at ActiveState
>> and we would very much like to see this issue get fixed. ActivePerl includes
>> patched versions of EU::MM and EU::CBuilder to avoid building broken DLLs,
>> but a user can unwittingly install a newer version of either module and
>> reintroduce the bug.
>>
>> I did notice that non-core EU::MM has already removed the use of --base-file
>> through some refactoring patches [1].
>>
>> [1]
>> https://github.com/Perl-Toolchain-Gang/ExtUtils-MakeMaker/commit/44e95e717372abe2b0a6ee55de4b686760b65360
>>
> I had a look at pulling the three commits on jdb/win32-mingw-reloc into blead...
>
> Am I correct in thinking that the changes to win32/makefile.mk are
> redundant as of bf543eaf90, which seems to have removed all mention of
> --base-file from win32/makefile.mk now anyway?
>
> That leaves the changes to EU::MM and EU::CB. I'm not sure what
> changes are best to use for EU::MM -- jdb's patch, or the upstream
> changes that you cited above. Presumably the latter would make more
> sense, but I don't know exactly which commit or commits would be a
> sensible self-contained unit to pull into blead.
>
> Also, the Perl and ActivePerl version numbers in jdb's patches would
> need updating: They currently refer to 5.20.3+, 5.22.1+ and 5.23.0+,
> and to 1805+, 2003+ and 2200+. The Perl versions should be amended to
> 5.20.4+ (although I doubt if that will get made unless there's some
> other need for it), 5.22.2+ (assuming the changes get backported) and
> 5.23.whatever, but I don't know what ActivePerl versions should be
> referred to. Are those numbers still correct?

Is there any update as for this issue?

Yet another strawberry perl user has reported to me today troubles related 
to this bug. Therefore I am trying to revive this discussion.

--
kmx

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About