Hi Mike,
I've just had the 'pleasure' to deal with the limitations of Flash 7
on Linux, so I would say I'm quite interested in version 9 coming out
as soon as possible. That's why this might sound off topic.
I also think Ralf's suggestion about parallel versions for
libstdc++.so.5 and
(posting this to the list, too)
Hi, I'm actually glad you replied.
On 9/26/06, Mike Melanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Having 2 binaries would immediately double the QA effort.
Yes, but also making sure the flash plugin can statically link with
libstdc++ increased your development effort
On 9/26/06, Mike Melanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The QA process is exactly doubled since there are 2 binaries instead of
1 binary that needs to be run through the formal certification process.
I understand that very well. I was just thinking that it might be
preferrable than dealing with
Hi,
I'm by no means an autotools expert, but there's a simple way to
achieve something somewhat similar to what you want.
You could run 'autoreconf -fvi' in your source directory, and then,
depending on your arch/configuration, you can type:
cd ../../bin/[os]/[compiler]/[debug/release]
Hi,
On 6/6/06, Ralf Corsepius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, that's one of those cases I'd prefer to call urban legends of
flat makefiles.
Yes, in an ideal world, a flat makefile can take all dependencies. But
in real world a complex package consists of more or less independent
subpackages, or
HI all,
I find some of the information in this thread quite useful, especially
since I was considering to move some of our project files to
non-recursive makefiles. I understand the downsides - silly variable
names in subdir makefiles, which are also tied to the respective
directory and require
Hi Marc,
thanks a lot for your assistance. Now I think I understand the point.
It seems like a good solution for the future, however, I don't have
the time to try this right now, and in the short term it doesn't seem
to bring significant improvements, besides allowing me to get rid of
Hi Marc,
what can I say, on one hand you've made me curious about this option.
We're also experiencing long linking times (well, nothing compared to
the old project you mentioned), but still, 4 minutes for linking in
one modified library is a bit much.
Unfortunately, we're not using libtool yet.
Hi and thanks for replying,
On 4/19/06, Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Stefan,
Have you ever considered using Libtool? Its convenience archives would
be a portable alternative to --whole-archive.
I'm not that familiar with libtool. And you have to bear in mind that
for most
Hi,
I was considering to file this as a bug report, but I thought I'd
first check on the list first. Sorry if this was already brought up
(there's also a bug report which is somewhat similar to my problem -
automake PR number 55).
So, my problem is that for some reason in our projects some
10 matches
Mail list logo
