On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 10:47:02AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:39:14PM +, Dave Page wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>
> >>>Writing and calling a temp .bat file might be yucky - having to keep two
> >>>environment files
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:39:14PM +, Dave Page wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Writing and calling a temp .bat file might be yucky - having to keep two
environment files is a lot more yucky, IMNSHO, and we shouldn't make
people do it.
+1
Ok, I g
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:39:14PM +, Dave Page wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Writing and calling a temp .bat file might be yucky - having to keep two
> > environment files is a lot more yucky, IMNSHO, and we shouldn't make
> > people do it.
>
> +1
Ok, I guess I'm outvoted ;-) I don't ca
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Writing and calling a temp .bat file might be yucky - having to keep two
> environment files is a lot more yucky, IMNSHO, and we shouldn't make
> people do it.
+1
/D
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Well, I honestly think we can live with it for one cycle. As soon as 8.4
opens I'll get to work converting these .bat files to pure one line
wrappers.
Ok. We obviously don't agree on what to do here, so let's open it up for
somebody
else to comment on
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 02:40:37PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>
> >>You seem to have misunderstood what I am suggesting. Of course we should
> >>document use of buildenv.pl in addition to the hacky fix to the .bat
> >>files. The hack is the part that would be i
Magnus Hagander wrote:
You seem to have misunderstood what I am suggesting. Of course we should
document use of buildenv.pl in addition to the hacky fix to the .bat
files. The hack is the part that would be invisible. The docs would be
visible and contain what would be our ongoing practice.
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 11:34 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I agree with getting rid of the remaining .bat files, or at least making
> them one line wrappers for perl scripts, but I think it's too late in
> the cycle for that now. As I explained, the rea
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I agree with getting rid of the remaining .bat files, or at least making
them one line wrappers for perl scripts, but I think it's too late in
the cycle for that now. As I explained, the reason I didn't make more
changes before was because I thought it was too late then
> >> I agree with getting rid of the remaining .bat files, or at least making
> >> them one line wrappers for perl scripts, but I think it's too late in
> >> the cycle for that now. As I explained, the reason I didn't make more
> >> changes before was because I thought it was too late then. I di
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I agree with getting rid of the remaining .bat files, or at least making
them one line wrappers for perl scripts, but I think it's too late in
the cycle for that now. As I explained, the reason I didn't make more
changes before was because I thought it was too late t
> >> OK, I'm thinking that the best way might be to do away with buildenv.bat
> >> altogether and replace the remaining references to it in .bat files with
> >> something like this fragment:
> >>
> >> if not exist src\tools\msvc\buildenv.pl goto nobuildenv
> >> perl -e "require 'src/tools/msvc/bu
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 09:31:30AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
My recollection is that I changed the minimum amount necessary, because
I was expecting us to go into beta at anmy moment (silly me). That might
be why we still have both. Th
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 09:31:30AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>My recollection is that I changed the minimum amount necessary, because
> >>I was expecting us to go into beta at anmy moment (silly me). That might
> >>be why we still have both. There was an expec
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 12:15 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Hi!
When you redid the msvc build stuff you seem to have missed the
documentatino.. Specifically, I notice that buildenv.pl isn't documented -
docs still say buildenv.bat is the way
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 12:15 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > When you redid the msvc build stuff you seem to have missed the
> > documentatino.. Specifically, I notice that buildenv.pl isn't documented -
> > docs still say buildenv.bat is the way to go.
> >
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Hi!
When you redid the msvc build stuff you seem to have missed the
documentatino.. Specifically, I notice that buildenv.pl isn't documented -
docs still say buildenv.bat is the way to go.
Also, do we now have both buildenv.bat and buildenv.pl? (I have them both
in my e
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 10:52:15AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > When you redid the msvc build stuff you seem to have missed the
> > documentatino.. Specifically, I notice that buildenv.pl isn't documented -
> > docs still say buildenv.bat is the way to go
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When you redid the msvc build stuff you seem to have missed the
> documentatino.. Specifically, I notice that buildenv.pl isn't documented -
> docs still say buildenv.bat is the way to go.
On a related note, I was wondering yesterday if there are any o
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Hi!
>
> When you redid the msvc build stuff you seem to have missed the
> documentatino.. Specifically, I notice that buildenv.pl isn't documented -
> docs still say buildenv.bat is the way to go.
>
> Also, do we now have both buildenv.bat and buildenv.pl? (I have them bo
Hi!
When you redid the msvc build stuff you seem to have missed the
documentatino.. Specifically, I notice that buildenv.pl isn't documented -
docs still say buildenv.bat is the way to go.
Also, do we now have both buildenv.bat and buildenv.pl? (I have them both
in my environment, but that could
21 matches
Mail list logo
