On 8/23/10 3:21 PM, Kees Bakker wrote:
> On 23 Aug, 2010, at 20:00 , Martin Costabel wrote:
>
>> Kees Bakker wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> The cmake installation in Fink changes the default for CMAKE_FIND_FRAMEWORK
>>> from "First" into "Last".
>>> This was a bad idea. Can we revert that change, please?
>>>
On Aug 23, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Kees Bakker wrote:
> PS and BTW. If the Fink packages were build as "fat binaries" for i386 and ppc
> I would never have tried to use my own framework.
Let me comment about why we don't do this. For a large percentage of open
source packages (the figure 80% is ban
On 23 Aug, 2010, at 20:00 , Martin Costabel wrote:
> Kees Bakker wrote:
>> Hi,
>> The cmake installation in Fink changes the default for CMAKE_FIND_FRAMEWORK
>> from "First" into "Last".
>> This was a bad idea. Can we revert that change, please?
>> I have the following reasons to ask for this reve
Kees Bakker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The cmake installation in Fink changes the default for CMAKE_FIND_FRAMEWORK
> from "First" into "Last".
>
> This was a bad idea. Can we revert that change, please?
>
> I have the following reasons to ask for this revert.
>
> 1. The documentation of cmake (in the Fi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/23/10 7:55 AM, Jean Orloff wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 6 months later, I have the same problem as William and Dominique reported in
> February. I guess this is specific to the x86_64 branch I am using too. I
> noticed the compiler used is cc=/usr/bin/cc (
Hi,
6 months later, I have the same problem as William and Dominique reported in
February. I guess this is specific to the x86_64 branch I am using too. I
noticed the compiler used is cc=/usr/bin/cc (i.e Apple's gcc 4.2.1). Wouldn't
things go better with fink's gcc 4.4.1?
Or did any of you fin
