Hi all,
what happened to the "stable version" download? The homepage now says to
go to http://chicken.wiki.br/dev-snapshots/current; the "dev-snapshots"
part doesn't provide the same assurance as a "stable version"...
Is there a mailing list thread that I have missed?
Best,
Dan
__
Hi Dan,
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 04:07:25 -0700 Dan Muresan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what happened to the "stable version" download? The homepage now says
> to go to http://chicken.wiki.br/dev-snapshots/current; the
> "dev-snapshots" part doesn't provide the same assurance as a "stable
> version".
On 9/20/07, Dan Muresan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> what happened to the "stable version" download? The homepage now says to
> go to http://chicken.wiki.br/dev-snapshots/current; the "dev-snapshots"
> part doesn't provide the same assurance as a "stable version"...
>
> Is there a maili
On 9/21/07, felix winkelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since we (I) are (am) a lazy bum trying to cut down the work related to
> creating
> releases, I (we...ahem) decided to stop creating official
> stable releases. The current distribution tarball is from now on autogenerated
> from the lates
Hallo,
On 9/21/07, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Rutledge scripsit:
>
> > It would be nice if there were auto-generated "stable" Windows (and
> > Mac) binaries too. It's just make PLATFORM=cross-linux-mingw for
> > Windows, right?
>
> I don't really see much point. Windows users
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 03:46:00PM -0300, Alex Queiroz wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> On 9/21/07, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Shawn Rutledge scripsit:
> >
> > > It would be nice if there were auto-generated "stable" Windows (and
> > > Mac) binaries too. It's just make PLATFORM=cross-linux-ming
Shawn Rutledge scripsit:
> It would be nice if there were auto-generated "stable" Windows (and
> Mac) binaries too. It's just make PLATFORM=cross-linux-mingw for
> Windows, right?
I don't really see much point. Windows users may like installable binaries
(I did too when I was being a Windows us
Hallo,
On 9/21/07, Peter Bex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Moral of the story is: Any system is supported as long as there is someone
> there to actually provide that support. Otherwise it's not going to happen.
>
Fair enough.
Cheers,
--
-alex
http://www.ventonegro.org/
___
If the Windows build is to be kept up to date, some Windows developer will have
to do that work. Look what happened after all the hard work Brandon put into
it. It was welcomed with open arms, but when it proved to be unmaintainable,
Windows support was the first to go.
This is another thread
On 9/21/07, Dan Muresan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is another thread I missed... Windows support is now gone? You do
No it's not gone - didn't you see the other thread about Cygwin and MinGW?
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.o
On 9/21/07, Dan Muresan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No it's not gone - didn't you see the other thread about Cygwin and MinGW?
>
> Well, Cygwin and/or MinGW is not what most "normal" people understand
> when they say "Windows support". They mean "Visual C". Is that gone?
Yes I believe so. But
I don't understand why cmake was dropped. Was it hard to maintain
But more importantly, Chicken used to be build-able with MSVC before
cmake, IIRC. What happened to that?
-- Dan
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists
On Sep 21, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Shawn Rutledge wrote:
On 9/21/07, Dan Muresan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't understand why cmake was dropped.
See the "anybody good with cmake?" thread in http://lists.gnu.org/
archive/html/chicken-hackers/
_
On 9/21/07, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See the "anybody good with cmake?" thread in http://lists.gnu.org/
> archive/html/chicken-hackers/
OK I understand now, thanks.
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.non
On 9/21/07, Dan Muresan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't understand why cmake was dropped. Was it hard to maintain
>
> But more importantly, Chicken used to be build-able with MSVC before
> cmake, IIRC. What happened to that?
MSVC support is gone. The Microsoft compilers are not particularl
MSVC support is gone. The Microsoft compilers are not particularly
robust (in particular there have been problems with VC 7.0 Express,
IIRC). Maintaining the build for the inadequate and hard to automate
While I understand your annoyance with MSVC, it's nevertheless an
important environment, an
I definitely second that!
Blake McBride
Dan Muresan wrote:
MSVC support is gone. The Microsoft compilers are not particularly
robust (in particular there have been problems with VC 7.0 Express,
IIRC). Maintaining the build for the inadequate and hard to automate
While I understand your annoy
On 9/27/07, Dan Muresan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> While I understand your annoyance with MSVC, it's nevertheless an
> important environment, and I maintain that supporting it lends more
> credence to Chicken in the industry. I understand that you do not wish
> to spend time on it. I still hope
18 matches
Mail list logo
