Matt Rice wrote:
On 2007-02-10 17:34:59 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only objection i've heard from gnustep.pc is Its not the way
GNUstep stores information.
Here is a refresher --
1. it adds an external dependency upon which *everything* would depend
an entirely
Nicola Pero schrieb:
I like the idea of your patch, so I rewrote the shell script and committed it.
Minor nit... isn't gnustep-config.sh meant to be executed, not sourced?
So shouldn't it be named gnustep-config instead of gnustep.config.sh?
I'm trying to follow this discussion but it seems
Test results for GNUstep as of Sun Feb 11 06:34:15 EST 2007
If a particular system failed compilation, the logs for that system will
be placed at ftp://ftp.gnustep.org/pub/testfarm
If you would like to be a part of this automated testfarm, see
so can we change everything to
GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES ?= $(shell gnustep-config.sh GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES)
include $(GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES)/common.make
I think it's a good suggestion, even if I'd change it (slightly) to be
ifeq ($(GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES),)
GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES := $(shell gnustep-config.sh
I like the idea of your patch, so I rewrote the shell script and committed
it.
Minor nit... isn't gnustep-config.sh meant to be executed, not sourced?
So shouldn't it be named gnustep-config instead of gnustep.config.sh?
Yes, it is meant to be executed, not sourced. Not sure what
On 2007-02-11 04:47:50 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so can we change everything to
GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES ?= $(shell gnustep-config.sh GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES)
include $(GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES)/common.make
I think it's a good suggestion, even if I'd change it (slightly) to be
ifeq
On 2007-02-11 05:02:53 -0800 Matt Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unless this is about = vs := where there exists nothing like :?=
this seems to be the case how := only execute the $(shell) a few times
instead of
once per time $(GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES) is used
On 2007-02-11 05:00:20 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like the idea of your patch, so I rewrote the shell script and
committed
it.
Minor nit... isn't gnustep-config.sh meant to be executed, not
sourced?
So shouldn't it be named gnustep-config instead of gnustep.config.sh?
Nicola Pero schrieb:
I like the idea of your patch, so I rewrote the shell script and committed
it.
Minor nit... isn't gnustep-config.sh meant to be executed, not sourced?
So shouldn't it be named gnustep-config instead of gnustep.config.sh?
Yes, it is meant to be executed, not sourced.
On 2007-02-11 03:23:35 -0800 David Ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nicola Pero schrieb:
So how does is help with writing configure scripts?
Maybe something like?
GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES=${GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES:=`gnustep-config
GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES`}
if test -z $GNUSTEP_PATHLIST; then
.
Fred Kiefer fredkiefer at gmx.de writes:
Richard Frith-Macdonald schrieb:
On 9 Feb 2007, at 17:55, Xavier Glattard wrote:
phew !
My brain boiled three times (and fried twice) before
i understand anything...
And many pieces of code are still quite obscure to me.
I would
Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
On 11 Feb 2007, at 04:33, Matt Rice wrote:
On 2007-02-10 17:34:59 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only objection i've heard from gnustep.pc is Its not the way
GNUstep stores information.
Here is a refresher --
1. it adds an external dependency
Christopher Armstrong wrote:
Hi
I usually try to avoid playing with GNUstep on Windows as it always
takes too long to setup an environment to run stuff in, but these
pkg-config discussions drew me back in.
Wim Oudshoorn schrieb:
Well, did you actually try compiling pkg-config?
I did not
Did you add your System Libraries directory and your Local Libraries
directory to /etc/ld.so.conf ? Did you run ldconfig after installing
any new library ? If not, it won't work.
That's the same for lots of non-gnustep stuff too, but mostly non-
gnustep stuff seems to avoid the problem.
On Feb 11, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Alex Perez wrote:
there are clear advantages...
now I can add stuff to configure for things *using* gnustep-make
which attempts to see if
GNUstep libraries exist.
there could be a way to bootstrap gnustep-make to just work
without any gnustep specific
Adam Fedor wrote:
On Feb 11, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Alex Perez wrote:
there are clear advantages...
now I can add stuff to configure for things *using* gnustep-make
which attempts to see if
GNUstep libraries exist.
there could be a way to bootstrap gnustep-make to just work
without any
On 11 Feb 2007, at 22:30, Alex Perez wrote:
Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
On 11 Feb 2007, at 04:33, Matt Rice wrote:
On 2007-02-10 17:34:59 -0800 Nicola Pero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
innovation.com wrote:
The only objection i've heard from gnustep.pc is Its not the
way GNUstep stores
17 matches
Mail list logo
