dbateman wrote: > James K. Lowden-2 wrote: > > > > To verify the integrity of your build environment, it would be well to > > have two people build identical binaries with matching fingerprints. > > The likelihood of two identical infections is vanishingly small. > > > > Thems fightin words... Seriously, we limited by the volunteer effort > involved in developing and building Octave. And those that see are > problem are the best to address it, so you're ideally placed for the > second build ;-)
I know, Mr. Batemean. I understand, and I agree. No offence meant. I was only suggesting that an MD5 digest might be less effort to produce than answering list messages about virus scanner errors. I don't know if I'm ideally placed or not, but I expect before long I'll be wrangling with building Octave for Windows from source. I'd like to get a version built with symbols, so I can trace calls to my extension with a debugger. I tried on NetBSD and gave up. (I'm not alone, cf. http://cvsweb.netbsd.se/cgi-bin/bsdweb.cgi/pkgsrc/math/octave/patches/) :-( BTW, is there interest here in making Octave more portable, in particular by using libtool? I might be able to help there. Kind regards, --jkl ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
