On Saturday 05 September 2009, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Sunday 28 June 2009, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Philip Lowman wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Alexander Neundorf
a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net
wrote:
On Monday 11 May 2009, Bill Hoffman
On Sunday 28 June 2009, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Philip Lowman wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Alexander Neundorf
a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net
wrote:
On Monday 11 May 2009, Bill Hoffman wrote:
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Monday 11 May 2009,
On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Philip Lowman wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Alexander Neundorf
a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net
wrote:
On Monday 11 May 2009, Bill Hoffman wrote:
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Monday 11 May 2009, Bill Hoffman wrote:
So, CMake has done what it does now
So, CMake has done what it does now from the start. There was a short
period of time when it did not, and that was when a re-write was done,
and it quickly broke some existing projects. Here is the thread:
http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/2007-March/013204.html
I think the rule should
Bill Hoffman wrote:
So, CMake has done what it does now from the start. There was a short
period of time when it did not, and that was when a re-write was done,
and it quickly broke some existing projects. Here is the thread:
http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/2007-March/013204.html
I
On Monday 11 May 2009, Bill Hoffman wrote:
So, CMake has done what it does now from the start. There was a short
period of time when it did not, and that was when a re-write was done,
and it quickly broke some existing projects. Here is the thread:
Yes, I can imagine that.
Still the current
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Monday 11 May 2009, Bill Hoffman wrote:
So, CMake has done what it does now from the start. There was a short
period of time when it did not, and that was when a re-write was done,
and it quickly broke some existing projects. Here is the thread:
Yes, I can
On Monday 11 May 2009, Bill Hoffman wrote:
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Monday 11 May 2009, Bill Hoffman wrote:
So, CMake has done what it does now from the start. There was a short
period of time when it did not, and that was when a re-write was done,
and it quickly broke some existing
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Alexander Neundorf a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net
wrote:
On Monday 11 May 2009, Bill Hoffman wrote:
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Monday 11 May 2009, Bill Hoffman wrote:
So, CMake has done what it does now from the start. There was a
short
period of time
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Alexander Neundorf a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net
wrote:
The attached patch (against current cvs HEAD) changes the behaviour of set(
CACHE) and option() slightly.
Until now it behaves like this:
if a variable FOO is set to a value, and then set FOO to a value in
10 matches
Mail list logo
