Problem building 1.4.5
wk at gnupg.org
Fri Jun 18 18:28:55 CEST 2010
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:56, vapier.adi at gmail.com said:
> neither exist today and likely wont for a long time (if someone were
> to implement it today), and wouldnt be backwards compatible
Well the symbol hiding is not really required and as long as we don't
need to change the ABI there is no real need for it.
> another option that isnt as clean is to add a Makefile target to run
> `sed` on the .in file itself rather than configure. then the contents
> wouldnt change between the current version script and the renamed .in
Yeah. I was also thinking of this. If we do it for one library we need
to do it for all of the GnuPG related libs and thus I see no immediate
need for it. Let me discuss this with the libtool or binutils folks.
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
More information about the Gcrypt-devel