On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
>> Would it be possible to use relative-to-calling-binary paths?
>
>
> Simply put: no. That would require quite some engineering effort especially
> considering that distros do have the libexec paths different with some
>
Am 2017-04-17 06:49, schrieb Ben Cooksley:
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Martin Gräßlin
wrote:
Am 2017-04-16 13:52, schrieb Ben Cooksley:
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Harald Sitter
wrote:
Not particularly related to the issue at hand (which is
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> Am 2017-04-16 13:52, schrieb Ben Cooksley:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Harald Sitter wrote:
>>>
>>> Not particularly related to the issue at hand (which is probably
>>> polkitqt having meh
Am 2017-04-16 13:52, schrieb Ben Cooksley:
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Harald Sitter wrote:
Not particularly related to the issue at hand (which is probably
polkitqt having meh cmake files), but relocating stuff in general is
sper unreliable and I would absolutely
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Harald Sitter wrote:
> Not particularly related to the issue at hand (which is probably
> polkitqt having meh cmake files), but relocating stuff in general is
> sper unreliable and I would absolutely advise against it as it can
> easily screw
Not particularly related to the issue at hand (which is probably
polkitqt having meh cmake files), but relocating stuff in general is
sper unreliable and I would absolutely advise against it as it can
easily screw up test results and builds alike, often in unobvious ways
(all it takes is a bit
Hi all,
As some will be aware i've been working on a new architecture for the
CI system which will solve a number of the problems we currently have
with the current iteration.
The new design should allow us to:
1) Use different base systems for different groupings of projects
2) Will eliminate