It was thus said that the Great Philip Newton once stated:
> 2009/8/15 Peter da Silva :
> > The bestest make replacement ever would be one that uses XML and requires a
> > different version of Java than the program you're building!
>
> Except that it doesn't actually use an XML parser but some od
Oh, I thoguht you meant Ant, which adds its runtime classpath to the
compilation classpath you specify making "it compiled once, it'll run
anywhere" even less true.
On 8/15/09, Philip Newton wrote:
> 2009/8/15 Peter da Silva :
>> The bestest make replacement ever would be one that uses XML and re
2009/8/15 Peter da Silva :
> The bestest make replacement ever would be one that uses XML and requires a
> different version of Java than the program you're building!
Except that it doesn't actually use an XML parser but some odd XML
hack, so if you hand-craft your Makefile.xml, it'll fail eight
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 08:24:22AM -0500, Peter da Silva wrote:
> I can't wait for battling Mono versions.
Is that like kittenwar, but the cutest clippy wins?
Nicholas Clark
On 2009-08-14, at 09:14, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
If only people would actually test even that far that their software
configures/builds/tests/installs in *Linux*
(as in: at least *try* more than one release of a distro, more than
one distro, more than x86 [1]). But I think I
will get my polka-d
On 2009-08-14, at 08:33, Roger Burton West wrote:
Ever try to build cdrtools? Make is so boring and old-fashioned, and
his
replacement is SO much better...
The bestest make replacement ever would be one that uses XML and
requires a different version of Java than the program you're building!
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:30:22PM +0100, Matthew King wrote:
> "Aaron J. Grier" writes:
> > the point of autotools is to lower the barriers to write portable
> > software. so why is so much autotools software non-portable?
>
> Much as autotools suck, they are still better than most alternatives
2009/8/15 Matthew King :
"Aaron J. Grier" writes:
the point of autotools is to lower the barriers to write portable
software. so why is so much autotools software non-portable?
Much as autotools suck, they are still better than most
alternatives. Autotools software is non-portable largely b
"Aaron J. Grier" writes:
> the point of autotools is to lower the barriers to write portable
> software. so why is so much autotools software non-portable?
Much as autotools suck, they are still better than most
alternatives. Autotools software is non-portable largely because people
skim throug
Matthew King wrote:
> Jarkko Hietaniemi writes:
>
>>> It works fine on Linux, ship it!
>> If only people would actually test even that far that their software
>> configures/builds/tests/installs in *Linux*
>> (as in: at least *try* more than one release of a distro, more than
>> one distro, more
10 matches
Mail list logo
