On 12 Feb 2007, at 16:47, Nicola Pero wrote:
IIRC we had some extensive discussions on the mailing lists that
.sh/.csh should only be used for scripts that are sourced. But since
GNUStep.sh is referenced so often in the archives, I'm having a hard
time finding the discussion.
I don't
Richard Frith-Macdonald richard at tiptree.demon.co.uk writes:
On 11 Feb 2007, at 19:18, Xavier Glattard wrote:
(...)
No, in fact both backends use the runloop and both use
GSRunLoopWatcher which works perfectly. The fact that both backends
at certain points chose to poll their
Fred Kiefer fredkiefer at gmx.de writes:
Xavier Glattard schrieb:
Another oddity of the win32 backend is the use of a good old window
procedure.
So the events are dispatched twice : first by some calls to
DispatchMessage (always to the same window procedure) and then
by
Test results for GNUstep as of Tue Feb 13 06:34:23 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
Richard Frith-Macdonald schrieb:
On 12 Feb 2007, at 16:47, Nicola Pero wrote:
IIRC we had some extensive discussions on the mailing lists that
.sh/.csh should only be used for scripts that are sourced. But since
GNUStep.sh is referenced so often in the archives, I'm having a hard
time
On 13 Feb 2007, at 11:36, David Ayers wrote:
snipped lots of examples of scripts without a .sh
I fear we would be starting a new convention by using .sh, but I'm
sure
we would get more discussion on conventions if take this to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I didn't mean to imply that use of a '.sh'
On 12 Feb 2007, at 17:05, Nicola Pero wrote:
Thanks ... good points. I like the idea of doing it automatically
only if the user wants it, but I'm (personally) not too keen on
having scripts
that try to talk to the user and that require attention.
Maybe we could just print a warning at the
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:18:54AM +, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
An extra dependency most emphatically IS an issue ... because the
'people' you are referring to actually just means 'you', and you are
just guessing about other users, and even assuming that 'most' is
actually the case,
On 13 Feb 2007, at 13:39, Andrew Ruder wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:18:54AM +, Richard Frith-Macdonald
wrote:
An extra dependency most emphatically IS an issue ... because the
'people' you are referring to actually just means 'you', and you are
just guessing about other users, and
Guy,
I've been reading through this thread and it has gone on for a long while and
I'm sorry that I haven't chimed in until now. I'm sorry to say, but, on the
one hand I'm not sure that I see the benefit of creating our own home grown
solution to a problem that has been solved by pkg-config.
1) Is pkg-config critical to the goal of FHS compliance?
No.
2) Can we leverage it to simplify gnustep-make?
No, but you can leverage it to make it even more complicated! ;-)
Thanks
___
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
Richard Frith-Macdonald richard at tiptree.demon.co.uk writes:
On 13 Feb 2007, at 11:03, Xavier Glattard wrote:
Richard Frith-Macdonald richard at tiptree.demon.co.uk writes:
On 11 Feb 2007, at 19:18, Xavier Glattard wrote:
(...)
No, in fact both backends use the runloop and both use
12 matches
Mail list logo
