What to do about zlib...

What to do about zlib...

[Chris Faylor]

I'm getting ready to add a new directory underneath "winsup" on sourceware.
It will hold the cygwin installer.

My problem is that it also uses "zlib" for compression and I'm wondering
what to do with the zlib-1.1.3 directory that it uses.

It's no problem, of course, to also import this directory into winsup but
I was wondering if it would make sense to check it in at a higher level.

I notice that Cygnus's internal repository already has a zlib directory
(hopefully this is not a state secret).  I was wondering if we wanted to
do the same thing in sourceware.

On a slightly related topic, I was wondering if we had any plans to
completely merge the gdb/binutils + gcc repositories.  The recent problem
with libiberty shows that this is something that should be rectified
eventually.

cgf

What to do about zlib...

[Chris Faylor]

I'm getting ready to add a new directory underneath "winsup" on sourceware.
It will hold the cygwin installer.

My problem is that it also uses "zlib" for compression and I'm wondering
what to do with the zlib-1.1.3 directory that it uses.

It's no problem, of course, to also import this directory into winsup but
I was wondering if it would make sense to check it in at a higher level.

I notice that Cygnus's internal repository already has a zlib directory
(hopefully this is not a state secret).  I was wondering if we wanted to
do the same thing in sourceware.

On a slightly related topic, I was wondering if we had any plans to
completely merge the gdb/binutils + gcc repositories.  The recent problem
with libiberty shows that this is something that should be rectified
eventually.

cgf

Re: What to do about zlib...

[Tom Tromey]

Chris> I notice that Cygnus's internal repository already has a zlib
Chris> directory (hopefully this is not a state secret).  I was
Chris> wondering if we wanted to do the same thing in sourceware.

We use zlib for libgcj; it is on sourceware as well.
I don't care if you put it into the cygwin tree, but somebody else
will have to deal with keeping the various versions in sync.

Tom

Re: What to do about zlib...

[Tom Tromey]

Chris> I notice that Cygnus's internal repository already has a zlib
Chris> directory (hopefully this is not a state secret).  I was
Chris> wondering if we wanted to do the same thing in sourceware.

We use zlib for libgcj; it is on sourceware as well.
I don't care if you put it into the cygwin tree, but somebody else
will have to deal with keeping the various versions in sync.

Tom

Re: What to do about zlib...

[Chris Faylor]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 02:55:33PM -0800, Tom Tromey wrote:
>Chris> I notice that Cygnus's internal repository already has a zlib
>Chris> directory (hopefully this is not a state secret).  I was
>Chris> wondering if we wanted to do the same thing in sourceware.
>
>We use zlib for libgcj; it is on sourceware as well.
>I don't care if you put it into the cygwin tree, but somebody else
>will have to deal with keeping the various versions in sync.

Doh.  I did a "find /cvs -name 'zlib*' -print" on sourceware but didn't
remember that /cvs was populated with a bunch of symbolic links.  I
should have known that 'sourceware' wasn't *that* fast.

By "cygwin tree" I assume you mean the CVS repository that cygwin lives
in?

I don't think it matters at all if the various versions are in sync except
for the inevitable user confusion and the basic sense of wrongness that
comes from having multiple versions, in general.

cgf

Re: What to do about zlib...

[Chris Faylor]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 02:55:33PM -0800, Tom Tromey wrote:
>Chris> I notice that Cygnus's internal repository already has a zlib
>Chris> directory (hopefully this is not a state secret).  I was
>Chris> wondering if we wanted to do the same thing in sourceware.
>
>We use zlib for libgcj; it is on sourceware as well.
>I don't care if you put it into the cygwin tree, but somebody else
>will have to deal with keeping the various versions in sync.

Doh.  I did a "find /cvs -name 'zlib*' -print" on sourceware but didn't
remember that /cvs was populated with a bunch of symbolic links.  I
should have known that 'sourceware' wasn't *that* fast.

By "cygwin tree" I assume you mean the CVS repository that cygwin lives
in?

I don't think it matters at all if the various versions are in sync except
for the inevitable user confusion and the basic sense of wrongness that
comes from having multiple versions, in general.

cgf

Re: What to do about zlib...

[Tom Tromey]

Chris> I don't think it matters at all if the various versions are in
Chris> sync except for the inevitable user confusion and the basic
Chris> sense of wrongness that comes from having multiple versions, in
Chris> general.

In a sense multiple versions won't be a real problem.
We rename our resulting library to avoid potential clashes.
I recommend that you not use the same name we are using.
(We also allow building libgcj against the system zlib, if it exists.)

T

Re: What to do about zlib...

[Tom Tromey]

Chris> I don't think it matters at all if the various versions are in
Chris> sync except for the inevitable user confusion and the basic
Chris> sense of wrongness that comes from having multiple versions, in
Chris> general.

In a sense multiple versions won't be a real problem.
We rename our resulting library to avoid potential clashes.
I recommend that you not use the same name we are using.
(We also allow building libgcj against the system zlib, if it exists.)

T

Re: What to do about zlib...

[Chris Faylor]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 04:55:05PM -0800, Tom Tromey wrote:
>Chris> I don't think it matters at all if the various versions are in
>Chris> sync except for the inevitable user confusion and the basic
>Chris> sense of wrongness that comes from having multiple versions, in
>Chris> general.
>
>In a sense multiple versions won't be a real problem.
>We rename our resulting library to avoid potential clashes.
>I recommend that you not use the same name we are using.
>(We also allow building libgcj against the system zlib, if it exists.)

Hmm.  I was just going to add zlib to the top level Makefile as it
is in the gcc repository.  The java targets there rely on zlib:

configure-target-libjava: $(ALL_GCC) configure-target-zlib ...

I don't think this is what you're saying though.

It would certainly be much easier just to put this in the winsup directory.
I was just trying to avoid duplication in CVS but maybe it really doesn't
matter in this case.

cgf

Re: What to do about zlib...

[Chris Faylor]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 04:55:05PM -0800, Tom Tromey wrote:
>Chris> I don't think it matters at all if the various versions are in
>Chris> sync except for the inevitable user confusion and the basic
>Chris> sense of wrongness that comes from having multiple versions, in
>Chris> general.
>
>In a sense multiple versions won't be a real problem.
>We rename our resulting library to avoid potential clashes.
>I recommend that you not use the same name we are using.
>(We also allow building libgcj against the system zlib, if it exists.)

Hmm.  I was just going to add zlib to the top level Makefile as it
is in the gcc repository.  The java targets there rely on zlib:

configure-target-libjava: $(ALL_GCC) configure-target-zlib ...

I don't think this is what you're saying though.

It would certainly be much easier just to put this in the winsup directory.
I was just trying to avoid duplication in CVS but maybe it really doesn't
matter in this case.

cgf

Re: What to do about zlib...

[Tom Tromey]

Chris> I don't think this is what you're saying though.

We call the resulting library "libzgcj.a".  I ecommend that you pick a
different name.  That's all I'm saying.

Chris> It would certainly be much easier just to put this in the
Chris> winsup directory.

If you do this, and you don't do your own autoconfiscation, you will
still need to rename.

T

Re: What to do about zlib...

[Tom Tromey]

Chris> I don't think this is what you're saying though.

We call the resulting library "libzgcj.a".  I ecommend that you pick a
different name.  That's all I'm saying.

Chris> It would certainly be much easier just to put this in the
Chris> winsup directory.

If you do this, and you don't do your own autoconfiscation, you will
still need to rename.

T

Re: What to do about zlib...

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 20000330172618.A29064@cygnus.com >you write:
  > On a slightly related topic, I was wondering if we had any plans to
  > completely merge the gdb/binutils + gcc repositories.  The recent problem
  > with libiberty shows that this is something that should be rectified
  > eventually.
I do want to see this happen, but I haven't been up to fighting with RMS
over the issue.  Plus there is a few technical things to take care of first
on the GCC side to help ensure a smooth transition.

jeff

Re: What to do about zlib...

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 20000330172618.A29064@cygnus.com >you write:
  > On a slightly related topic, I was wondering if we had any plans to
  > completely merge the gdb/binutils + gcc repositories.  The recent problem
  > with libiberty shows that this is something that should be rectified
  > eventually.
I do want to see this happen, but I haven't been up to fighting with RMS
over the issue.  Plus there is a few technical things to take care of first
on the GCC side to help ensure a smooth transition.

jeff

Re: What to do about zlib...

[Chris Faylor]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 03:38:00PM -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
>
>  In message < 20000330172618.A29064@cygnus.com >you write:
>  > On a slightly related topic, I was wondering if we had any plans to
>  > completely merge the gdb/binutils + gcc repositories.  The recent problem
>  > with libiberty shows that this is something that should be rectified
>  > eventually.
>I do want to see this happen, but I haven't been up to fighting with RMS
>over the issue.  Plus there is a few technical things to take care of first
>on the GCC side to help ensure a smooth transition.

I probably should already know the answer but what is RMS's complaint about
merging the two repositories?

cgf

Re: What to do about zlib...

[Chris Faylor]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 03:38:00PM -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
>
>  In message < 20000330172618.A29064@cygnus.com >you write:
>  > On a slightly related topic, I was wondering if we had any plans to
>  > completely merge the gdb/binutils + gcc repositories.  The recent problem
>  > with libiberty shows that this is something that should be rectified
>  > eventually.
>I do want to see this happen, but I haven't been up to fighting with RMS
>over the issue.  Plus there is a few technical things to take care of first
>on the GCC side to help ensure a smooth transition.

I probably should already know the answer but what is RMS's complaint about
merging the two repositories?

cgf

Re: What to do about zlib...

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 20000330174059.A29263@cygnus.com >you write:
  > On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 03:38:00PM -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
  > >
  > >  In message < 20000330172618.A29064@cygnus.com >you write:
  > >  > On a slightly related topic, I was wondering if we had any plans to
  > >  > completely merge the gdb/binutils + gcc repositories.  The recent prob
  > lem
  > >  > with libiberty shows that this is something that should be rectified
  > >  > eventually.
  > >I do want to see this happen, but I haven't been up to fighting with RMS
  > >over the issue.  Plus there is a few technical things to take care of firs
  > t
  > >on the GCC side to help ensure a smooth transition.
  > 
  > I probably should already know the answer but what is RMS's complaint about
  > merging the two repositories?
Nothing specific, mostly because I haven't actually told him I want to do it.

I can envision a few objections on technical & political grounds and I think
I can show none of them hold water, but just haven't taken the plunge.

jeff

Re: What to do about zlib...

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 20000330174059.A29263@cygnus.com >you write:
  > On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 03:38:00PM -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
  > >
  > >  In message < 20000330172618.A29064@cygnus.com >you write:
  > >  > On a slightly related topic, I was wondering if we had any plans to
  > >  > completely merge the gdb/binutils + gcc repositories.  The recent prob
  > lem
  > >  > with libiberty shows that this is something that should be rectified
  > >  > eventually.
  > >I do want to see this happen, but I haven't been up to fighting with RMS
  > >over the issue.  Plus there is a few technical things to take care of firs
  > t
  > >on the GCC side to help ensure a smooth transition.
  > 
  > I probably should already know the answer but what is RMS's complaint about
  > merging the two repositories?
Nothing specific, mostly because I haven't actually told him I want to do it.

I can envision a few objections on technical & political grounds and I think
I can show none of them hold water, but just haven't taken the plunge.

jeff