> Am 02.04.2017 um 18:19 schrieb Ivan Vučica :
>
> Hey,
>
> I'm trying to install GNUstep into /GNUstep with folders such as
> /GNUstep/System, /GNUstep/Local, etc. However, GNUstep.conf should live in
> /etc/GNUstep/GNUstep.conf.
>
> ./configure --prefix=/GNUstep --with-layout=gnustep --sy
On 2 Apr 2017, at 19:28, Niels Grewe wrote:
>
> Yes, it seems that gcc and clang disagree on how to interpret const. Here's a
> PR that addresses this particular problem:
>
> https://github.com/gnustep/libobjc2/pull/22
This still looks like a GCC issue. The C standard includes values stored i
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:34 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2017, at 19:28, Niels Grewe wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it seems that gcc and clang disagree on how to interpret const.
> Here's a PR that addresses this particular problem:
> >
> > https://github.com/gnustep/libobjc2/pull/22
>
> This stil
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Wolfgang Lux wrote:
>
> > Am 02.04.2017 um 18:19 schrieb Ivan Vučica :
> > Looks like sysconfdir is not used here. And in fact, GNUstep.conf ends
> up in /GNUstep/etc/GNUstep/GNUstep.conf, where it presumably won't be
> found by things trying to find where GNUstep
On 3 Apr 2017, at 11:51, Ivan Vučica wrote:
>
> 5.4 is almost a year old, so maybe this was fixed. However, I'm not sure it
> would be so bad to have a workaround for this compiler?
>
> There is already a warning that clang should be used (which I, of course,
> switched to; I prefer it anyway)
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:06 PM, David Chisnall wrote:
> I think simply removing support for building with GCC is probably a better
> idea.
Well, that's disappointing :)
___
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/li
On 03.04.2017 13:06, David Chisnall wrote:
On 3 Apr 2017, at 11:51, Ivan Vučica wrote:
5.4 is almost a year old, so maybe this was fixed. However, I'm not sure it
would be so bad to have a workaround for this compiler?
There is already a warning that clang should be used (which I, of cours
On 3 Apr 2017, at 19:19, Niels Grewe wrote:
>
> As I said in the pull request, I don't have any interest in GCC as an
> Objective-C compiler anymore (hell, I haven't compiled a single line of
> Objective-C code using gcc this year…). But I think outright dropping GCC
> support is a bit harsh.
Either way, there's a difference "effectively" deprecating something and giving
explicit and timely warning about the fact that a certain environment will no
longer be supported, is all I'm trying to say.
Cheers,
Niels
Von: thera...@sucs.org
Gesendet: 3. April 2017 8:51 nachm.
An: niels.gr...@
It's not totally clear to me how to make a good use of this.
Let's assume I have an existing .deb obtained via packages.debian.org (or
an .so from that .deb), and I have a source tree checked out from GNUstep's
Subversion. Let's assume I have no 'package tree' (i.e. one with debian/
directory) at
10 matches
Mail list logo
