>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:57:23 +0100 Martin Jansa
>> said:
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 07:43:55PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:26:58 +0100 Vincent Torri <
>> vincent.to...@gmail.com>
said:
> Hey
>
> a french user tried to compile e17 with the
As anisse said, I've tryed to compil e at rev 79369 and the alpha-2 with
efl 1.7.1 without issues
2012/11/16 Carsten Haitzler
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:57:23 +0100 Martin Jansa
> said:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 07:43:55PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> > > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:26:58 +01
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:57:23 +0100 Martin Jansa said:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 07:43:55PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:26:58 +0100 Vincent Torri
> > said:
> >
> > > Hey
> > >
> > > a french user tried to compile e17 with the latest tarballs (i've not
> > > tested
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:26:58 +0100, Vincent Torri
wrote :
> Hey
>
> a french user tried to compile e17 with the latest tarballs (i've not
> tested myself), and he had undef ref during link.
>
> So I'm wondering if efl_version in e17 configure.ac should be bumped or not
Please note this is unc
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 07:43:55PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:26:58 +0100 Vincent Torri
> said:
>
> > Hey
> >
> > a french user tried to compile e17 with the latest tarballs (i've not
> > tested myself), and he had undef ref during link.
> >
> > So I'm wondering if
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:26:58 +0100 Vincent Torri said:
> Hey
>
> a french user tried to compile e17 with the latest tarballs (i've not
> tested myself), and he had undef ref during link.
>
> So I'm wondering if efl_version in e17 configure.ac should be bumped or not
what undef symbol was it? i
Hey
a french user tried to compile e17 with the latest tarballs (i've not
tested myself), and he had undef ref during link.
So I'm wondering if efl_version in e17 configure.ac should be bumped or not
Vincent
--
Monitor
