Test results for GNUstep as of Thu Feb 15 06:34:21 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
Fail Compile i386-unknown-netbsdelf3.1 Thu Feb 15 03:54:19 CET 2007
According to the logs, the reason for this was --
config.status:753: creating config-noarch.make
config.status:753: creating config.make
config.status:753: creating openapp
config.status:753: creating opentool
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fail Compile i386-unknown-netbsdelf3.1 Thu Feb 15 03:54:19 CET
2007
According to the logs, the reason for this was --
(...)
I'm not sure why
gnustep-config.in couldn't be found ... it's a file from subversion! Maybe
it
got deleted somehow ? Or an incomplete
Nicola,
Have we even tried, experimentally, doing this refactoring to see if it
actually would make things simpler? The best way to prove a point is
code. I would like to see if it can be done.
While I understand it's not *strictly* needed for FHS compliance. it is
something that many
I guess there isn't one. You probable have to get it from SVN. I
doubt that startup works with the most recent changes in make
anyway. It's meant to work more with released versions of libraries.
On Feb 15, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Marco Bardelli wrote:
Sorry, where is the
Richard Frith-Macdonald richard at tiptree.demon.co.uk writes:
(...)
That's perhaps a bug ... as I understand it the code it supposed to
return an X or windows event if it has already been received, and if
no event has been received, call the runloop to wait for more
events. As long as
OK, I was wrong, it should work, more-or-less with the current SVN
(but it needs to be updated). I just looked on the ftp site and it's
not there, but I don't know why. I'll have to find out.
On Feb 15, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Marco Bardelli wrote:
re-sorry ...
I followed the instractio by
On Feb 15, 2007, at 7:35 AM, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
Have we even tried, experimentally, doing this refactoring to see
if it
actually would make things simpler? The best way to prove a point is
code. I would like to see if it can be done.
While I understand it's not *strictly*
