Question about your services. ejv
Title: Hello The reason for this email is to introduce myself and to see if there is anything we could do to help each other out Hello fellow internet marketer. #recipient# The reason for sending this email to you is to introduce myself and to see if there is anything we could do to help each other. My intention is not to sell you anything, we are in the same type of business or at least have something in common business wise. Email marketing or Marketing in general I am targeting businesses that have the keywords email, email marketing or anything to do with marketing in general. So please take a moment to read this. My wish is to get to know your products and have you do the same with mine. Our site gets on average 5,000 very targeted customers a day and lots more that are looking to market a product or site. Our site is primarily marketed through the larger search engines and placement services. Introduction: Our company is all about Email Marketing, Services, Software & a whole lot more. We have been around for 2 1/2 years. We have many clients that we service in many aspects of email marketing etc. I am interested in sharing ideas and possibly working together in some fashion. I am looking for interested parties that deal with these categories: Opt-in lists, email software, marketing, email services, bulletproof, safelists, bulk friendly isp, bulk friendly, pop email boxes, Email, bulk email hosting, bulletproof, web hosting, email hosting, bulkmail, bulkmailing, bulk email, bulkemail host, bulletproof email, bulletproof web hosting, email optin hosting, opt-in, host, email, email lists, bulkemail isp. Our company now handles all of the above categories. Please understand I am only looking for a direct source not a sub source, my business is very well established so I am only interested in seasoned partners. If you feel that you don't fit the above criteria it's still possible for your company to use our services if you are interested. We can supply you with all of the above mentioned services so don' t hesitate to send us an email with your needs, we would be more than happy to handle your email marketing campaigns. If you have any interest in forming a relationship with us please contact by email at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please give us a little info on yourself and your business in the reply email that you send us. We have a whole lot to offer to reasonable business partners. If you received this and are not part of the targeted group above we apologize as we are only trying to target this type of group. If you would like to never hear from us again please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put remove into the subject line. mamjmuseoecidxjmnpcnbu
Re: building/installing Python modules?
>> What I ended up doing is building the swig/python modules with >> automake. ... >> The missing link I had to fix with automake/python module support was >> that python wouldn't load uninstalled automake shared objects as >> python extensions. The solution was to write a python importer for >> libtool .la files. Would you be willing to share your auto*/libtool/python mods with the intention of getting this capability added to the relevant distributions? Thx, -- Skip Montanaro ([EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.mojam.com/)
Sending _OBJECTS output to configuration specific directory - HELP!!
I've been struggling with this, and cannot seem to find any examples of other people doing the same... but I'd like to be able to have automake/configure create makefiles that put the .o, .a, executables, etc in another directory based on a configuration parameter. I did this by hand-editting the Makefile.in, but I want to have automake do it for me so we can use the simpler interface it offers (and I can script the generation of them easier). Anyway, we want to do the typical thing like Visual SlickEdit offers so we can do a "gmake -CFG=Debug" to have it send all output to the "Debug" directory, or "DebugOptimized" or "Release" or "Profiled", etc. To do this, the linker has to do it's work in that directory as well, and the directory has to be based on a variable. Isn't really that difficult to do by hand, but I'm having trouble getting automake to do it because I don't see any way of having it do the "cd $(CFGDIR)" before running "ar" or linking, etc, or if there's a simpler way automake can do this and I just can't find it. Please respond directly so I don't have to subscribe to the list just to ask this one question. Thanks for any help, Ray Cardillo
monolithic Makefile.am
So what options exist for making a single top-level monolithic Makefile.am? I can't imagine keeping this file up-to-date by hand, especially on a large project where changes must be frequently made by multiple developers. Ideas? H
RE: Sending _OBJECTS output to configuration specific directory - HELP!!
Run the configure script twice. Once from $(srcdir)/build/Release with CFLAGS=-O3 CXXFLAGS=-O3 Once from $(srcdir)/build/Debug with CFLAGS="-O -g" CXXFLAGS="-O -g" Cheers, Rob
Re: monolithic Makefile.am
On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 23:19, Harlan Stenn wrote: > So what options exist for making a single top-level monolithic Makefile.am? > > I can't imagine keeping this file up-to-date by hand, especially on a large > project where changes must be frequently made by multiple developers. > > Ideas? I split mine up into sub-files, one in each directory, using "include". ie: Makefile.am, includes "src/subMake.am", which includes "src/foo/subMake.am", etc. Each subMake.am must add itself to EXTRA_DIST. Also, all paths inside subMake.am have to be relative to the top Makefile. Variables which may have entries added in several places (such as CFLAGS) are set to an empty value in Makefile.am, and appended to in subMake.am's. I've not worked out a solution for letting each subMake.am add something to a rule such as "install-local". I set such rules in the top Makefile.am, if needed (the problem is that, if two subMake.am's define install-local:, make will complain about a multiply defined rule. Perhaps automake should merge them somehow (or at least, a mechanism for telling automake to merge them could be provided)) Other than that, it's all pretty workable. -- Richard
Re: monolithic Makefile.am
Harlan Stenn wrote: > > So what options exist for making a single top-level monolithic Makefile.am? > > I can't imagine keeping this file up-to-date by hand, especially on a large > project where changes must be frequently made by multiple developers. > > Ideas? Autogen based on definitions in the subdirs :-)
Re: monolithic Makefile.am
Does anybody have some examples of how this works? And is it possible to go to any spot in the tree and have a "make" do a monolithic (non-recursive "make") build of the descendent hierarchy? H
RE: monolithic Makefile.am
I've implemented that myself, but only using autoconf, not automake. I'd be happy to post a description if it's of interest. The basic idea is to make sure all variables are fully qualified so there are no clashes between any Makefile fragments in the whole system. (I also prefer to avoid phony rules in the innards of the Makefiles; dependencies should be on real files. That makes these complex things easier to understand - fewer long chains to follow - and I suspect it helps avoid problems with make -j2. Dunno if it's really key.) - Dan -Original Message- From: Harlan Stenn To: Richard Boulton Cc: Harlan Stenn; Automake; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 5/2/2002 4:48 PM Subject: Re: monolithic Makefile.am Does anybody have some examples of how this works? And is it possible to go to any spot in the tree and have a "make" do a monolithic (non-recursive "make") build of the descendent hierarchy? H
