Hi Ralf
Appreciate the offer, but I think at this stage it isn't worth the
hassle. We either implement a long-term fix, or just pay the price.
Thanks though
Ralph
At 01:37 AM 11/21/2005, you wrote:
Hi Ralph,
* Ralph H. Castain wrote on Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 04:04:34AM CET:
> Just as an FYI -
Yeah, I recall the discussions and we did, in fact, bring the
subdirectory thing up. What I'm now seeing is that, at least for me,
I hadn't really realized the full implications of that decision. It
works great if you are just making changes within an existing
subsystem - but if you need to mod
Hi Ralph,
* Ralph H. Castain wrote on Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 04:04:34AM CET:
> Just as an FYI -- this proposed fix didn't work. It apparently takes
> a great deal more to "undo" the Makefile consolidation. I worked on
> it for a couple of hours and finally just gave up.
I'm sorry. If you describ
Well, we discussed this issue at fairly great length at the various
meetings, and every time the answer was "make the build system
faster". I believe we even had a discussion about this very thing
(not being able to build in subdirectories).
This weekend's change should have almost no real
Just as an FYI -- this proposed fix didn't work. It apparently takes
a great deal more to "undo" the Makefile consolidation. I worked on
it for a couple of hours and finally just gave up.
The last commits, of course, only made this situation worse as even
more of the tree now is so heavily int
* Ralph H. Castain wrote on Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 03:45:26PM CET:
> At 07:33 AM 11/15/2005, you wrote:
> >
> >Would it help if only the change not to build a convenience archive in
> >orte/dps would be reverted? You could then
> > cd orte
> > make dps/libdps.la
> >
> >and would only have to iss
Your proposed change would help a great deal - thanks! Can you steer
me through the change?
At 07:33 AM 11/15/2005, you wrote:
Hi Ralph,
* Ralph H. Castain wrote on Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 03:12:38PM CET:
>
> While I generally find the new build methodology (i.e., reducing the
> number of makefil
Hi Ralph,
* Ralph H. Castain wrote on Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 03:12:38PM CET:
>
> While I generally find the new build methodology (i.e., reducing the
> number of makefiles) has little impact on me, I have now encountered
> one problem that causes a significant difficulty. In trying to work
> on
Yo folks
While I generally find the new build methodology (i.e., reducing the
number of makefiles) has little impact on me, I have now encountered
one problem that causes a significant difficulty. In trying to work
on a revised data packing system for the orte part of the branch, I
now find t
