On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Nick Treleaven
nick.trelea...@btinternet.com wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:11:15 +
Nick Treleaven nick.trelea...@btinternet.com wrote:
Now reverted. It's not great that systems without 'which' print an error
message about a missing C++ compiler, but at
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Erik Southworth
erik.southwo...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Nick Treleaven
nick.trelea...@btinternet.com wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:11:15 +
Nick Treleaven nick.trelea...@btinternet.com wrote:
Now reverted. It's not great that
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:11:15 +
Nick Treleaven nick.trelea...@btinternet.com wrote:
This patch actually reduced portability.
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=787791aid=2973764group_id=153444
Solutions would be welcome.
I think we should just revert the change.
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:06:38 -0400, Erik wrote:
In fact, I think there are many system scripts which
use 'which', so if you don't have 'which', your system shouldn't
even work.
It's that Geany is built in a clean chroot build environment along
with only the compilers and libs required.
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Nick Treleaven
nick.trelea...@btinternet.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:06:38 -0400
Erik Southworth erik.southwo...@gmail.com wrote:
To be clear, if we don't have ``which`` it shouldn't error about a c++
compiler. Also, (1) if we must have ``which``,
