On 22/07/2011, at 7:14 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> >> On 21/07/2011, at 10:43 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell
> >> wrote:
> >>> Just to understand the situation... fossil 1.18 has a broken configure
> >>> script,
> >>> right? It fails for
On 21/07/2011, at 10:26 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 21/07/2011, at 5:24 PM, Ben Summers wrote:
>>
>> Probably makes sense to rename Makefile to Makefile.classic and
>> have configure create Makefile from Makefile.in thoug
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> >> On 21/07/2011, at 10:43 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell
> wrote:
> >>> Just to understand the situation... fossil 1.18 has a broken configure
> script,
> >>> right? It fails for me on some syntax problem.
> >>>
> >>> So there is nothing releas
On 21/07/2011, at 11:48 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:34:28PM +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> On 21/07/2011, at 10:43 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell
>> wrote:
>>> Just to understand the situation... fossil 1.18 has a broken configure
>>> script,
>>> right? It fails
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 09:47:23AM -0400, Martin S. Weber wrote:
> On 07/21/11 09:34, Steve Bennett wrote:
> > On 21/07/2011, at 10:43 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell
> > wrote:
> >> Just to understand the situation... fossil 1.18 has a broken configure
> >> script,
> >> right? It fails for me on som
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:34:28PM +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 21/07/2011, at 10:43 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> > Just to understand the situation... fossil 1.18 has a broken configure
> > script,
> > right? It fails for me on some syntax problem.
> >
> > So there is nothing release
On 07/21/11 09:34, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 21/07/2011, at 10:43 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
>> Just to understand the situation... fossil 1.18 has a broken configure
>> script,
>> right? It fails for me on some syntax problem.
>>
>> So there is nothing released with autconf still.
>
> Ple
On 21/07/2011, at 10:43 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 08:26:25AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/07/2011, at 5:24 PM, Ben Summers wrote:
>
> Probably makes sense to rename Makefile to Makefile
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 08:26:25AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> > On 21/07/2011, at 5:24 PM, Ben Summers wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Probably makes sense to rename Makefile to Makefile.classic and
> > >> have configure create Makefile from Makefil
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 21/07/2011, at 5:24 PM, Ben Summers wrote:
> >>
> >> Probably makes sense to rename Makefile to Makefile.classic and
> >> have configure create Makefile from Makefile.in though.
> >
> > Yes!
>
> What say you Richard? Will you accept a patc
On 21/07/2011, at 5:24 PM, Ben Summers wrote:
>
> On 21 Jul 2011, at 07:42, Steve Bennett wrote:
>>
>> On 20/07/2011, at 7:16 PM, Ben Summers wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm concerned that typing 'make' on obscure platforms builds subtly broken
>>> binaries. For example, on Solaris, it'll build one whi
On 21 Jul 2011, at 07:42, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> On 20/07/2011, at 7:16 PM, Ben Summers wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm concerned that typing 'make' on obscure platforms builds subtly broken
>> binaries. For example, on Solaris, it'll build one which truncates your
>> passwords to 8 characters.
>>
>> I
12 matches
Mail list logo