Le 2011-06-15 à 19:07, Mike Meyer a écrit :
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:55:18 -0700
> Matt Welland wrote:
>> I thought that from an end user perspective all that is needed with autoconf
>> is sh.
>
> Not quite true. The problem is that, while every system has a /bin/sh,
> different systems use dif
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:55:18 -0700
Matt Welland wrote:
> I thought that from an end user perspective all that is needed with autoconf
> is sh.
Not quite true. The problem is that, while every system has a /bin/sh,
different systems use different shells for that: most (but not all)
GNU/Linux syste
I'm happy to see that 'fossil' recognises the configure script in
http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/57ca24966f as a binary file.
That does not require hard AI, but in this case fossil made a good guess.
:)
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@
On 15 Jun 2011, at 16:28, Andres Perera wrote:
i (now) prefer autotools because i spent some time getting
comfortable with m4
Yes, I think failure to understand m4, or failure to realise that it
needs to be understood, is one reason why people end up disliking
autotools.
Eric
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:03:03AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
> So, I'm asking for volunteers for people with better autoconf-foo than me,
> to put together an autoconf/automake setup for Fossil. If you are good with
> autoconf/automake, please consider contributing your expertise to the
> project
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:39 AM, Arjen Markus wrote:
> Hello Graeme,
>
> On 2011-06-15 11:04, Graeme Gill wrote:
>> Michal Suchanek wrote:
>>> Autotools can be installed and operated on Windows like most other
>>> build configuration systems.
>>
>> I'm not sure that's possible without installing a
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 07:04:24PM +1000, Graeme Gill wrote:
> Michal Suchanek wrote:
> > Autotools can be installed and operated on Windows like most other
> > build configuration systems.
>
> I'm not sure that's possible without installing a UNIX like shell
> and set of tools. This is rather for
Hello Graeme,
On 2011-06-15 11:04, Graeme Gill wrote:
> Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> Autotools can be installed and operated on Windows like most other
>> build configuration systems.
>
> I'm not sure that's possible without installing a UNIX like shell
> and set of tools. This is rather foreign for
Michal Suchanek wrote:
> Autotools can be installed and operated on Windows like most other
> build configuration systems.
I'm not sure that's possible without installing a UNIX like shell
and set of tools. This is rather foreign for a native MSWin developer.
Graeme Gill.
On 15 June 2011 08:37, Alexander Vladimirov wrote:
> how abouth this: http://buildconf.brlcad.org
A script like that is standard part of many autotoolized projects. In
fact, most people can't build an autotoolized project (other than
release tarballs with pre-generated configure that happens to w
On 15 June 2011 09:47, Twylite wrote:
> On 09:59 PM, Matt Welland wrote:
>> For fossil you could keep the files generated by autoconf (not the
>> ./configure step but the initialization step) checked in. Then it is
>> just ./configure && make install on most systems. For anything weird
>> (e.g. wi
On 09:59 PM, Matt Welland wrote:
> For fossil you could keep the files generated by autoconf (not the
> ./configure step but the initialization step) checked in. Then it is
> just ./configure && make install on most systems. For anything weird
> (e.g. windows) provide a Makefile.win32 or similar
12 matches
Mail list logo
