On 01/28/2012 10:56 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>
> PASS on MinGW, SKIP on Cygwin. Good.
>
Thanks for confirming. I've pushed the patch.
Regards,
Stefano
Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-27 21:58:
> On 01/27/2012 09:40 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-27 18:37:
>>
>>> Thanks for the link. What do you think of the workaround provided by the
>>> attached patch? Good to go before 1.11.3?
>>
>> I haven't tested the patch, but i
On 01/27/2012 09:23 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 01/27/2012 01:08 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Ralf Corsepius
>> wrote:
- The support for the "obscure" multilib feature has been deprecated,
and will be moved out of the automake core in the next major Aut
On 01/27/2012 09:40 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-27 18:37:
>
>> Thanks for the link. What do you think of the workaround provided by the
>> attached patch? Good to go before 1.11.3?
>
> I haven't tested the patch, but if you ask me, I don't like "hiding" this
> in a S
Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-27 18:37:
> On 01/27/2012 05:43 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-27 17:16:
>>> On 01/27/2012 03:18 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> *snip*
And here's from Cygwin "1.7.10s(0.259/5/3) 20120123" (latest snapshot, with
release candidate "quali
On 01/27/2012 01:08 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Ralf Corsepius
> wrote:
>>> - The support for the "obscure" multilib feature has been deprecated,
>>> and will be moved out of the automake core in the next major Automake
>>> release (1.12).
>>
>> Bummer - Ple
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Ralf Corsepius
wrote:
>> - The support for the "obscure" multilib feature has been deprecated,
>> and will be moved out of the automake core in the next major Automake
>> release (1.12).
>
> Bummer - Please reconsider this and understand that politliness
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Peter Rosin wrote:
What I don't get is what the f/#¤ they are doing stumbling over memory
issues when compressing what could best be described as tiny files, at
least compared to the memory that is available. Crappy.
How does lzip compare? Does it work better?
Competiti
On 01/27/2012 05:43 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-27 17:16:
>> On 01/27/2012 03:18 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> *snip*
>>> And here's from Cygwin "1.7.10s(0.259/5/3) 20120123" (latest snapshot, with
>>> release candidate "quality", 1.7.10 is coming RSN, as they say).
>>>
>>>
Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-27 17:16:
> On 01/27/2012 03:18 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
*snip*
>> And here's from Cygwin "1.7.10s(0.259/5/3) 20120123" (latest snapshot, with
>> release candidate "quality", 1.7.10 is coming RSN, as they say).
>>
>> lzma.test fails for the same reason as above in MinG
On 01/27/2012 03:18 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-26 16:17:
>> Hi Peter.
>>
>> On 01/26/2012 04:08 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-25 09:40:
Please report bugs and problems to , and send
general comments and feedback to .
>>>
>>> Looks
Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-26 16:17:
> Hi Peter.
>
> On 01/26/2012 04:08 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-25 09:40:
>>> Please report bugs and problems to , and send
>>> general comments and feedback to .
>>
>> Looks as usual on MinGW with cl, with only lzma.test fail
Hi Peter.
On 01/26/2012 04:08 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-25 09:40:
>> Please report bugs and problems to , and send
>> general comments and feedback to .
>
> Looks as usual on MinGW with cl, with only lzma.test failing as reported
> previously (can be avoided with XZ
Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-25 09:40:
> Please report bugs and problems to , and send
> general comments and feedback to .
Looks as usual on MinGW with cl, with only lzma.test failing as reported
previously (can be avoided with XZ_DEFAULTS=--memlimit=150MiB in the
environment, but I forgot abo
On 01/26/2012 07:47 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 01/25/2012 09:40 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> We are pleased to announce the Automake 1.11.2b test release.
>
>> New in 1.11.2b:
>>
>> * WARNING: Future backward-incompatibilities!
>
> Breaking backwar
On 01/25/2012 09:40 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
We are pleased to announce the Automake 1.11.2b test release.
New in 1.11.2b:
* WARNING: Future backward-incompatibilities!
Breaking backward compatiblity and removing features within a release
series (here automake-1.11) is a truely bad
We are pleased to announce the Automake 1.11.2b test release.
It contains two new minor features (support for the creation of
lzip-compressed distribution archives, and for the new variables
EXTRA_foo_DEPENDENCIES), some new warnings meant to inform the
users about upcoming backward
17 matches
Mail list logo
