As long as I can get WZ to compile, I'm happy :)On 6/16/06, Christian Vest Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/16/06,
Christian Ohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday, 16 June 2006 at 22:33, Dennis Schridde wrote:> > Damn, still no agreement, but a whole new system I haven't even heard of> >
On 6/16/06, Christian Ohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday, 16 June 2006 at 22:33, Dennis Schridde wrote:> > Damn, still no agreement, but a whole new system I haven't even heard of> > before...> Yes, I know and I didn't want to snub you...
No offence taken. My approach was pragmatic, not progr
Am Freitag, 16. Juni 2006 23:42 schrieb Christian Ohm:
> On Friday, 16 June 2006 at 22:33, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> > > Damn, still no agreement, but a whole new system I haven't even heard
> > > of before...
> The question is: What about if
> they come back? Will they accept a new system?
Dunno...
On Friday, 16 June 2006 at 22:33, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> > Damn, still no agreement, but a whole new system I haven't even heard of
> > before...
> Yes, I know and I didn't want to snub you...
No offence taken. My approach was pragmatic, not progressive: use
something people are familiar with, a
Am Freitag, 16. Juni 2006 21:19 schrieb Christian Ohm:
> On Friday, 16 June 2006 at 15:11, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> > I'll try using waf (was searching for a big testcase for some time now ;)
> > ) It would only need Python... (No shell, no Perl, no Autohell, only
> > Python) (Am not sure if this i
On Friday, 16 June 2006 at 15:11, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> What I don't like about that approach, is that inevitably all source files
> will be build. That makes it impossible to have different renderers (sw/hw)
Not if the files are in different directories, you can just add the
needed directory
Am Freitag, 16. Juni 2006 15:42 schrieb Christian Ohm:
> On Sunday, 9 April 2006 at 14:12, Per Inge Mathisen wrote:
> > If we are going to have revision number displayed, it should not show
> > zero for makefile.raw builds (AFAIK all windows builds are
> > makefile.raw builds). I'm inclined to ign
On Sunday, 9 April 2006 at 14:12, Per Inge Mathisen wrote:
> If we are going to have revision number displayed, it should not show
> zero for makefile.raw builds (AFAIK all windows builds are
> makefile.raw builds). I'm inclined to ignore the revision number. Too
> much pain for too little gain.
On 4/8/06, Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Samstag, 8. April 2006 22:26 schrieb Dennis Schridde:
> > > attached is a proposal for a replacement for revision.h.
> > [23:21] regarding changing revision.h ... please make sure whatever
> > you change it to works with both autoconf and
Am Samstag, 8. April 2006 22:26 schrieb Dennis Schridde:
> > attached is a proposal for a replacement for revision.h.
> [23:21] regarding changing revision.h ... please make sure whatever
> you change it to works with both autoconf and makefile.raw, at least.
> working with msvc or whatever would
Hi,
attached is a proposal for a replacement for revision.h.
(Heavily influenced by svn-docs.)
--Dennis
Index: src/Makefile.am
===
--- src/Makefile.am (revision 59)
+++ src/Makefile.am (working copy)
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
-I$(top_srcdir)/
Hi,
attached is a proposal for a replacement for revision.h.
(Heavily influenced by svn-docs.)
--Dennis
pgpbeHElSlT1z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
12 matches
Mail list logo
