Dear Eric,
Thanks a lot for your response.
Eric Blake (2015/09/04 06:07 -0600):
> On 09/03/2015 08:09 AM, Sébastien Hinderer wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I am one of the maintainers of Coccinelle[1], a tool written in the
> > Objective Caml[2] language.
> >
> > The tool is distributed with the
On 09/03/2015 08:09 AM, Sébastien Hinderer wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am one of the maintainers of Coccinelle[1], a tool written in the
> Objective Caml[2] language.
>
> The tool is distributed with the libraries it depends on (they are
> provided as bundles).
At one point, this was how both
On 9/4/2015 8:26 AM, Sébastien Hinderer wrote:
> Dear Eric,
>
> Thanks a lot for your response.
>
> Eric Blake (2015/09/04 06:07 -0600):
>> On 09/03/2015 08:09 AM, Sébastien Hinderer wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I am one of the maintainers of Coccinelle[1], a tool written in the
>>> Objective
> I think the bundle approach is favoured because the Objective Camllanguage
> and its libraries are not as widespread as gettext and libtool.
> So the idea of the bundles is tomake life of end-users simpler,
> but of course it also makes thelifeofdevelopers and maintainers
> a bit harder.
The
On 09/04/2015 02:26 PM, Sébastien Hinderer wrote:
Eric Blake (2015/09/04 06:07 -0600):
On 09/03/2015 08:09 AM, Sébastien Hinderer wrote:
Dear all,
I am one of the maintainers of Coccinelle[1], a tool written in the
Objective Caml[2] language.
The tool is distributed with the libraries it
Dear Ralf,
> Well, what I can tell you with my Fedora on is that in Fedora we discourage
> bundling, because it in a nutshell raises a lot problems in maintenance,
> both for system-integrators (read: distros) and upstreams.
Many thanks for having written this. It is also what I think but I'd
Hello Warren,
Many thanks for providing all these useul comments.
Warren Young (2015/09/04 12:27 -0600):
> Left unsaid in Eric’s answer is that this change in distribution
> philosophy happened *because* capable versions started appearing
> everywhere, so it was no longer necessary to provide
+++ Ralf Corsepius [2015-09-04 17:38 +0200]:
> On 09/04/2015 02:26 PM, Sébastien Hinderer wrote:
>
> >Eric Blake (2015/09/04 06:07 -0600):
> >>On 09/03/2015 08:09 AM, Sébastien Hinderer wrote:
> >>>Dear all,
> >>>
> >>>I am one of the maintainers of Coccinelle[1], a tool written in the
>
> So, is there a way to have all these macros that detect the OCaml-related
> tools integrated to the autoconf distribution?
Yes.
Are there any more software developers who would like to contribute
their macros to the GNU Autoconf Archive so that more programming languages
can be directly
On Sep 4, 2015, at 6:26 AM, Sébastien Hinderer wrote:
>
> Eric Blake (2015/09/04 06:07 -0600):
>>
>> https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/gettext.html#AM_005fGNU_005fGETTEXT
>> https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/libtool.html#Distributing-libltdl
>
> Thank. I think the bundle
On Sep 4, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Sébastien Hinderer wrote:
>
> Warren Young (2015/09/04 12:27 -0600):
>
>> If you’re using libraries that are also not yet ubiquitous, the
>> alternative to providing the sub-packages with the main package is to
>> add a hard-fail autoconf test for them.
>
> You mean
On Sep 4, 2015, at 1:45 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>
> I’m referring to the fact that with embedded tarballs, you can’t call
> AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS()
By the way, the how-to of conditional AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS() is a FAQ. One set of
answers is here:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15230696/
> The tool is distributed with the libraries it depends on
> (they are provided as bundles).
This approach is generally fine in principle.
> For each dependency, coccinelle's configure script checks whether the
> library is already installed. If not, the system is prepared to use the
> bundled
13 matches
Mail list logo
