Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On 10/07/2011, at 7:26 AM, Matt Welland wrote: > Worked great for me on two Ubuntu machines. One mildly unusual thing, "make > install" uses mv to put the binary in /usr/local/bin. Normally I think > autoconf generated Makefiles will use install or a sh script to emulated > install and keeps th

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On 10/07/2011, at 6:28 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Eric wrote: On Wed, July 6, 2011 6:11 am, Steve Bennett wrote: > Hi Richard, > >> I really dislike autoconf - a feeling cultivated through years of >> experience >> trying to use it.  And I think I'm pro

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

Worked great for me on two Ubuntu machines. One mildly unusual thing, "make install" uses mv to put the binary in /usr/local/bin. Normally I think autoconf generated Makefiles will use install or a sh script to emulated install and keeps the executable in the build dir. Probably no big deal but why

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Eric wrote: > > On Wed, July 6, 2011 6:11 am, Steve Bennett wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > > >> I really dislike autoconf - a feeling cultivated through years of > >> experience > >> trying to use it. And I think I'm probably not alone in that feeling. > > > > You are

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Jul 7, 2011, at 20:08 , Bill Burdick wrote: > Has anyone looked at cmake? A lot of projects have switched from autoconf > to cmake (MySQL, KDE, Blender, Wireshark, ...). Read the thread to see why cmake was already rejected. Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski _

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

Has anyone looked at cmake? A lot of projects have switched from autoconf to cmake (MySQL, KDE, Blender, Wireshark, ...). Bill On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:15 AM, paolo lulli wrote: > What about a try with 'autoproject' to give a start ? > > Regards, > P. > > -- > www.lulli.net > > ___

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

What about a try with 'autoproject' to give a start ? Regards, P. -- www.lulli.net ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On 07/07/2011, at 3:03 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On 07/07/2011, at 2:22 PM, Matt Welland wrote: >> Does the cross compilation really work? > > ... > $ ./configure --host=mips-unknown-nto-qnx6.5.0 > Host System...mips-unknown-nto-qnx6.5.0 >

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On 07/07/2011, at 2:22 PM, Matt Welland wrote: > > Does the cross compilation really work? > > ... > $ ./configure --host=mips-unknown-nto-qnx6.5.0 > Host System...mips-unknown-nto-qnx6.5.0 > ... > $ file fossil > fossil: ELF 32-bit MSB execut

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On 07/07/2011, at 2:22 PM, Matt Welland wrote: > As an end user this appears to the best alternative I've seen so far. The > fact that autosetup presents a familiar ./configure && make interface is > fantastic - if it really works as advertised. > > Does the cross compilation really work? I'd

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

As an end user this appears to the best alternative I've seen so far. The fact that autosetup presents a familiar ./configure && make interface is fantastic - if it really works as advertised. Does the cross compilation really work? I'd really like to put fossil on my n900 but I don't want to set

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On 07/07/2011, at 7:30 AM, Eric wrote: > > On Wed, July 6, 2011 6:11 am, Steve Bennett wrote: >> Hi Richard, >> >>> I really dislike autoconf - a feeling cultivated through years of >>> experience >>> trying to use it. And I think I'm probably not alone in that feeling. >> >> You are very much

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Wed, July 6, 2011 6:11 am, Steve Bennett wrote: > Hi Richard, > >> I really dislike autoconf - a feeling cultivated through years of >> experience >> trying to use it. And I think I'm probably not alone in that feeling. > > You are very much not alone. See http://msteveb.github.com/autosetup/w

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

Hi Richard, > I really dislike autoconf - a feeling cultivated through years of experience > trying to use it. And I think I'm probably not alone in that feeling. You are very much not alone. See http://msteveb.github.com/autosetup/why/ > I've > tried to avoid having to use autoconf in Fossil

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

Le 2011-06-17 à 00:11, "Altu Faltu" a écrit : > Oh. Good to know. But then are there chances of makefile and autoconf not > staying in sync... I request MinGW too be part of requirement. > [snip] That's would be good but a bit more complicate to do Even right now, mingw Makefile is not a

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

I'm building fossil for and embedded ARM-system in a crosscompiling environment. These controlers are used on our NAS-Servers which hosts our fossil repositories. This is not a complete unix environment. But I was happy all the time with the unix makefile. How do I handle this in future?   Regards

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

Oh. Good to know. But then are there chances of makefile and autoconf not staying in sync... I request MinGW too be part of requirement. - Original Message - From: Richard Hipp Sent: 06/17/11 08:07 AM To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Altu Faltu wrote: > Will the move to autoconf remove ability to build fossil for Windows > through MinGW and will make us install MSVC? > No. Those capabilities are retained. There will be separate makefiles for windows. autoconf is used on unix only. (Maybe

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

Will the move to autoconf remove ability to build fossil for Windows through MinGW and will make us install MSVC? ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On 16.06.2011 14:32, Richard Hipp wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Steve Havelka wrote: Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a CMake-based build script? Though I think autoconf is also necessary (for use by people who do not have cmake installed) I will also consid

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

Sometime on 6/16/2011, Michael Richter wrote: >(Yes, I know of Cygwin -- and wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. > I also know of MinGW/MSYS, but this is a suboptimal solution >for people who don't want to Unixify their boxen.) For the record, the goal of MSYS is exactly to provide the prere

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

Hello, On 2011-06-16 14:47, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 08:32:15AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Steve Havelka wrote: >> >>> Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a CMake-based build >>> script? >>> >>> >>> >> Though I

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 08:32:15AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Steve Havelka wrote: > > > Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a CMake-based build > > script? > > > > > > > Though I think autoconf is also necessary (for use by people who do not

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Steve Havelka wrote: > Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a CMake-based build > script? > > > Though I think autoconf is also necessary (for use by people who do not have cmake installed) I will also consider having appropriate cmake scripts in

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

*A Modest Proposal* * * The problems with the auto* tools are myriad and well-documented in the grey hairs and bald pates of many a poor soul who's had to put them to use. Other environments suggested -- CMake, QMake, Jam, et al -- suffer from assorted platform problems including (but not limited

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On 14 June 2011 15:57, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > >> If you have a way other than autoconf to generate a universal build script >> that runs on any unix machine without special software installed, then that >> will be fine. CMake does not qualif

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

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

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

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

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

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

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

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

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

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

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

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

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

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

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

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.

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

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

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

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

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

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

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

how abouth this: http://buildconf.brlcad.org 2011/6/15 Michal Suchanek : > On 15 June 2011 07:55, Matt Welland wrote: >> All of these alternative build systems are a PITA on one system or another. >> If it requires jam, cmake or anything that requires installing prerequisites >> 9 times out of 10

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On 15 June 2011 07:55, Matt Welland wrote: > All of these alternative build systems are a PITA on one system or another. > If it requires jam, cmake or anything that requires installing prerequisites > 9 times out of 10 I won't even try that software unless there is a binary > install available so

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

All of these alternative build systems are a PITA on one system or another. If it requires jam, cmake or anything that requires installing prerequisites 9 times out of 10 I won't even try that software unless there is a binary install available somewhere or a pre-assembled Makefile. I thought that

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

Martin Gagnon wrote: > All that thread start when someone post about haiku that need different libs > flags in order to > link properly. If a OS like Haiku don't have this jam, all that is pretty > pointless. Pretty easy to port, especially if the OS is similar to UNIX. Graeme Gill. ___

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

Le 2011-06-14 à 22:19, Graeme Gill a écrit : > Stephan Beal wrote: >> Another suggestion nobody has made yet: jam. It can be distributed in >> static-binary form directly with the source tree (i've seen this done in a >> couple projects, and i know it can build on some rather obscure systems). i

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

Stephan Beal wrote: > Another suggestion nobody has made yet: jam. It can be distributed in > static-binary form directly with the source tree (i've seen this done in a > couple projects, and i know it can build on some rather obscure systems). i > can't personally speak for jam's usability - read

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:37:06 -0400 David Slocombe wrote: > But autotools should come first as it both supports the above and > goes at least a long way to helping all the other folks who aren't > plugged into some Linux distribution's binary package system. Is autotools the only such tool the fe

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On 2011-06-14 11:53, Mike Meyer wrote: > For most unix and unix-like systems, a more appropriate requirement > would be "is available from the package system". I.e. - it's something > that can be trivially installed, without having to configure or build > or chase dependencies for it. I'm jumping

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

I don't expect it to be. From: fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org [mailto:fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hipp Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:35 AM To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf F

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On 6/14/2011 11:53 AM, Mike Meyer wrote: > I feel compelled to point out that "installed by default on most unix > boxes" isn't a realistic requirement. ... a C compiler isn't > "installed by default" on OpenSolaris or most of the GNU/Linux distros... > For most unix and unix-like systems, a more

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 05:42:49PM +0200, Stephan Beal wrote: > Another suggestion nobody has made yet: jam. It can be distributed in > static-binary form directly with the source tree (i've seen this done in a > couple projects, and i know it can build on some rather obscure systems). i > can't pe

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:27:49 -0400 Richard Hipp wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Steve Havelka wrote: > > > Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a CMake-based build > > script? > ccmake is not installed by default on either my iMac nor my SuSE Linux > desktop. So it

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > >> Surely the autoconf for Fossil won't be to hard? All it needs to do is >> check for a couple of libraries and set a few options based on --with-X >> flags. >> > Another suggestio

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > Surely the autoconf for Fossil won't be to hard? All it needs to do is > check for a couple of libraries and set a few options based on --with-X > flags. > In my experience, it's not getting the project set up which is problematic, but

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

; Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:12 AM > To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil > > > On Jun 14, 2011, at 14:06 , Ben Summers wrote: > > > As an intermediate stage, a simple script to put the output of uname >

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Williams, Brian wrote: > Has anyone thrown themselves on this grenade yet? > > If not, I can take a look at autoconf. > If you haven't already got any grey hairs then you'll have some soon. Good luck! -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil On Jun 14, 2011, at 14:06 , Ben Summers wrote: > As an intermediate stage, a simple script to put the output of uname -s into the Makefile might be a way to get going? > > http://fossi

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Jun 14, 2011, at 14:06 , Ben Summers wrote: > As an intermediate stage, a simple script to put the output of uname -s into > the Makefile might be a way to get going? > > http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?r=configure-make > > autotools are a bit of a nightmare, and possibly overkil

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

2011-06-14 01:27 keltezéssel, Richard Hipp írta: On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Steve Havelka > wrote: Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a CMake-based build script? ccmake is not installed by default on either my iMac nor my SuSE Linux

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

> > On Jun 14, 2011, at 13:45 , Alexander Vladimirov wrote: > >> actually autoconf requires GNU M4, and somehow tends to bring automake >> and libtool to your system as well. > > > Yeah, that's for the developers. But users just need to run the Bourne shell > configure script. As an intermed

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Jun 14, 2011, at 13:45 , Alexander Vladimirov wrote: > actually autoconf requires GNU M4, and somehow tends to bring automake > and libtool to your system as well. Yeah, that's for the developers. But users just need to run the Bourne shell configure script. Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrze

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Jun 14, 2011, at 13:37 , Richard Hipp wrote: >> What about Python dependency? Is it acceptable? > > Python is on my iMac and my Linux desktop. But it is not installed on the > OpenBSD 4.7 system that I use for testing. Perhaps in a few more years > Python will have become sufficiently unive

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

actually autoconf requires GNU M4, and somehow tends to bring automake and libtool to your system as well. 2011/6/14 Richard Hipp : > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa > wrote: >> >> What about Python dependency? Is it acceptable? > > Python is on my iMac and my Linux desktop. 

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa wrote: > > What about Python dependency? Is it acceptable? > Python is on my iMac and my Linux desktop. But it is not installed on the OpenBSD 4.7 system that I use for testing. Perhaps in a few more years Python will have become sufficiently

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > If you have a way other than autoconf to generate a universal build script > that runs on any unix machine without special software installed, then that > will be fine. CMake does not qualify because it is not installed by default > on most

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On 09:59 PM, Nathaniel R. Reindl wrote: >> Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a CMake-based build >> script? > The GNU autotools have a lot of traction in the community, and a wide > variety of people are familiar with them. This makes a compelling > case alone for adopting the

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:27:49 -0400 Richard Hipp wrote: > If you have a way other than autoconf to generate a universal build > script that runs on any unix machine without special software > installed, then that will be fine. CMake does not qualify because it > is not installed by default on mos

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Steve Havelka wrote: > Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a CMake-based build > script? > ccmake is not installed by default on either my iMac nor my SuSE Linux desktop. So it a a non-starter. If you have a way other than autoconf to generat

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Steve Havelka wrote: > Is it necessary that it's autoconf?  Or would you take a CMake-based build > script? The GNU autotools have a lot of traction in the community, and a wide variety of people are familiar with them. This makes a compelling case alone for adop

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a CMake-based build script? thanks, Steve ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Remigiusz Modrzejewski wrote: > > On Jun 13, 2011, at 16:03 , Richard Hipp wrote: > > > > (4) The result should have a 0 Fail-Score according to > > > https://www.theopensourceway.org/wiki/How_to_tell_if_a_FLOSS_project_is_doomed_to_FAIL > > Does this imply intro

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Ramon Ribó wrote: > > > > (4) The result should have a 0 Fail-Score according to > > > https://www.theopensourceway.org/wiki/How_to_tell_if_a_FLOSS_project_is_doomed_to_FAIL > > > > This point is not easy to acomplish. Take into acount the following > statement i

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

On Jun 13, 2011, at 16:03 , Richard Hipp wrote: > > (4) The result should have a 0 Fail-Score according to > https://www.theopensourceway.org/wiki/How_to_tell_if_a_FLOSS_project_is_doomed_to_FAIL Does this imply introduction of properly numbered releases? ;) Your project does not do versioned re

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

just my 2 cents.. maybe premake4 could make a sense? quoting their site (http://industriousone.com/what-premake): Premake is a "plain old C" application, distributed as a single executable file. It is small, weighing in at around 200K. It does not require any additional libraries or runtimes to be

Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

> > (4) The result should have a 0 Fail-Score according to > https://www.theopensourceway.org/wiki/How_to_tell_if_a_FLOSS_project_is_doomed_to_FAIL > This point is not easy to acomplish. Take into acount the following statement in the previous page: You've written your own source control for thi

[fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil

I really dislike autoconf - a feeling cultivated through years of experience trying to use it. And I think I'm probably not alone in that feeling. I've tried to avoid having to use autoconf in Fossil and have been reasonably successful at that for the first 5 years. But I think we may be nearing