On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
Been a busy few weeks and I just got around to checking out and
building again. I've built all of the libs required for EWL except for
emotion on Solaris and things seem to be working well once those awk
fixes were in place.
ok, I'll do those chan
Been a busy few weeks and I just got around to checking out and
building again. I've built all of the libs required for EWL except for
emotion on Solaris and things seem to be working well once those awk
fixes were in place.
On Nov 12, 2007 6:58 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:41:38 +0100 (CET) Vincent Torri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
>
> Hey,
>
> The changes of edje's configure were done 3 weeks ago and it seems that no
> problem arises.
>
> I let one more week for last checks for packagers and other developpers.
> I'll do the changes next
Hey,
I've begun to do the modifications of the configure.in and Makefile.am
files. It's a very long process (lots of files and checks to do). For now,
i've ported the libs that e17 uses (eet, evas, ecore, embryo, edje and
e_dbus), in addition to efreet. I'll continue next week-end.
Because of
Hey,
The changes of edje's configure were done 3 weeks ago and it seems that no
problem arises.
I let one more week for last checks for packagers and other developpers.
I'll do the changes next week end.
regards
Vincent
---
On Sunday, 07 October 2007, at 18:46:30 (+0200),
Vincent Torri wrote:
> dist-bzip2 adds the bzip2 archive. The gzip archive is still built.
Didn't know that. Okay, that's fine then. :)
Michael
--
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Linux Server/Cluster
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Sunday, 07 October 2007, at 11:39:42 (+0200),
> Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
>
>> Vincent Torri [2007-09-30 16:04]:
>>> Ideas ? remarks ?
>>
>> Can we switch to this:
>> AC_INIT(package, version)
>> AC_CONFIG_SRCDIR([configure.in])
>> AM_INIT_AUT
On Sunday, 07 October 2007, at 11:39:42 (+0200),
Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
> Vincent Torri [2007-09-30 16:04]:
> > Ideas ? remarks ?
>
> Can we switch to this:
> AC_INIT(package, version)
> AC_CONFIG_SRCDIR([configure.in])
> AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([dist-bzip2])
Except for the bzip2 part. Don't do
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 11:49:37 -0300 "Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On 10/5/07, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > VER=1.2.3.045
> > ...
> > AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(edje, $VER)
> > ...
> > VMAJ=`echo $VER | awk -F . '{printf("%s", $1);}'`
> > VMIN=`echo
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
> Can we switch to this:
> AC_INIT(package, version)
> AC_CONFIG_SRCDIR([configure.in])
> AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([dist-bzip2])
> instead? I believe that's the current way to initialize
> autoconf/automake.
Tilman, here is a patch below. Is it sufficient
On 10/5/07, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> VER=1.2.3.045
> ...
> AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(edje, $VER)
> ...
> VMAJ=`echo $VER | awk -F . '{printf("%s", $1);}'`
> VMIN=`echo $VER | awk -F . '{printf("%s", $2);}'`
> VMIC=`echo $VER | awk -F . '{printf("%s", $3);}'`
> SNAP=`echo $
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 13:50:10 +0200 (CEST) Vincent Torri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
>
>
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
>
> > Vincent Torri [2007-09-30 16:04]:
> >> Ideas ? remarks ?
> >
> > Can we switch to this:
> > AC_INIT(package, version)
> > AC_CONFIG_SRCDIR([configure.in]
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
> Vincent Torri [2007-09-30 16:04]:
>> Ideas ? remarks ?
>
> Can we switch to this:
> AC_INIT(package, version)
> AC_CONFIG_SRCDIR([configure.in])
> AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([dist-bzip2])
> instead? I believe that's the current way to initialize
> autoconf/
Vincent Torri [2007-09-30 16:04]:
> Ideas ? remarks ?
Can we switch to this:
AC_INIT(package, version)
AC_CONFIG_SRCDIR([configure.in])
AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([dist-bzip2])
instead? I believe that's the current way to initialize
autoconf/automake.
Regards,
Tilman
--
A: Because it messes up the
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 11:04:56 -0300 "Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On 10/5/07, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It's nice and clean, that's true -- but it's going to take discipline!
> >
> > indeed! absolutely. and i hope to maintain that dis
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 03:10:08PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote :
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 20:07:41 +0200 Albin Tonnerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
>
> >
> > While we're talking about configure... :)
> > I'm part of the team which packages E for debian, and there's something in
> > configure we'd
On 10/5/07, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's nice and clean, that's true -- but it's going to take discipline!
>
> indeed! absolutely. and i hope to maintain that discipline. until 1.0 i'm
> reserving the right to break anything and ignore the version - but from 1.
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:19:59 -0700 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Saturday, 06 October 2007, at 01:50:06 (+0900),
> Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>
> > i know how it works :) i just don't want to work with libtool's
> > abortion of a versioning system. i want to do it the old fashion
On Saturday, 06 October 2007, at 01:50:06 (+0900),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> i know how it works :) i just don't want to work with libtool's
> abortion of a versioning system. i want to do it the old fashioned
> way. .so major version changes == abi break. old calls removed or
> changed abi or fun
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:35:31 -0700 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Friday, 05 October 2007, at 15:17:19 (+0900),
> Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>
> > ok- looking at the patch gives me meat to chew on :) overall this
> > looks good. i'm a little dubious of the whole libtool version t
On Friday, 05 October 2007, at 15:17:19 (+0900),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> ok- looking at the patch gives me meat to chew on :) overall this
> looks good. i'm a little dubious of the whole libtool version thing
> - i actually HATE it. i'd prefer the libtool
> revision/version/whatever stuff is s
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 13:21:27 +0200 Albin Tonnerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 03:10:08PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote :
> > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 20:07:41 +0200 Albin Tonnerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > babbled:
> >
> > >
> > > While we're talking about configure... :)
> > >
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:31:34 +0200 (CEST) Vincent Torri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
ok- looking at the patch gives me meat to chew on :) overall this looks good.
i'm a little dubious of the whole libtool version thing - i actually HATE it.
i'd prefer the libtool revision/version/whatever stuff is
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 20:07:41 +0200 Albin Tonnerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
>
> While we're talking about configure... :)
> I'm part of the team which packages E for debian, and there's something in
> configure we'd really like to see changed (and of course we can provide
> patches):
> What we
On Tuesday, 02 October 2007, at 18:31:34 (+0200),
Vincent Torri wrote:
> I've attached a patch for (for instance) edje, that shows the
> modifications I want to do.
>
> I've put the libtool doc about its versioning, but it's not
> necessary to include it in configure.in.
>
> so, what is goo
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Michael Jennings wrote:
Most of that sounds fine, but why not provide us with a sample
configure.in with examples of all 5 changes made to it so we can get a
more concrete idea of what you're wanting to do? Then if people have
any specific objections, they're easier to no
On Monday, 01 October 2007, at 20:07:41 (+0200),
Albin Tonnerre wrote:
> Thoughts ? (hint: 'this is your distro's problem" is not a valid answer)
Not only is it valid, it's correct. It is the responsibility of the
build system to correctly process dependencies (whether hard or soft)
to make sure
While we're talking about configure... :)
I'm part of the team which packages E for debian, and there's something in
configure we'd really like to see changed (and of course we can provide
patches):
What we think is that when you enable a feature with
--enable-whatever, and if the requirements of
On Sunday, 30 September 2007, at 16:04:54 (+0200),
Vincent Torri wrote:
> Since I try to port the efl on windows, I've run into some problems with
> autofoo (strange, isn't it ?). I've looked a bit at autoconf and libtool
> doc, and I think that configure.in scripts can be improved a bit.
>
> H
Hello,
Since I try to port the efl on windows, I've run into some problems with
autofoo (strange, isn't it ?). I've looked a bit at autoconf and libtool
doc, and I think that configure.in scripts can be improved a bit.
Here is what I propose. Feel free to tell me if my proposals are not
corre
30 matches
Mail list logo
