Re: RFC: doc for `Handling Tools that Produce Many Outputs'

2004-02-06 Thread Tim Van Holder
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 10:49:07AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 10:36, Eric Siegerman wrote: > > > > > I believe this fails on the following corner case. Suppose the > > > date ordering is like this (with data.h being the oldest): > > > data.h data.foo data.c > >

cheap víagra

2004-02-06 Thread Loretta A. Dumas
Generic viagra, at cheap prices. Most places charge $20, we charge $3. Quite a difference, huh? An amazing erection WITHIN SEVERAL SECONDS is guaranteed to you! Go into sexual overdrive today... vrm! Shipped worldwide.Your easy-to-use solution is here: http://www.gomedz.biz/via/?oxygen -

Re: RFC: doc for `Handling Tools that Produce Many Outputs'

2004-02-06 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
Hi Eric, Thanks for all your comments (public and private)! >>> "Eric" == Eric Siegerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Eric> On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 11:28:29PM +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: >> One of the output (here `data.c') is used as a witness of the run of >> `foo'. [...] Eric> Hmm.

Re: RFC: doc for `Handling Tools that Produce Many Outputs'

2004-02-06 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
Tim: | Wouldn't this help somewhat for a case like this: | | data.h: data.c | @if test -f $@; then \ |touch $@; \ | else \ |rm -f data.c; \ |$(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) data.c; \ | fi Good point! I'll update

ChangeLogs included in dist

2004-02-06 Thread Ben Elliston
Automake will currently include a file called "ChangeLog" in the distribution. Many large projects use a scheme of appending a number to ChangeLogs when the files are rotated. For example, GCC uses: ChangeLog ChangeLog.0 ... ChangeLog.10 Can I suggest that the list of matched files be e

Re: RFC: doc for `Handling Tools that Produce Many Outputs'

2004-02-06 Thread Andreas Schwab
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi Eric, > > Thanks for all your comments (public and private)! > "Eric" == Eric Siegerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Eric> On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 11:28:29PM +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > >> One of the output (here `data.c') is

Re: RFC: doc for `Handling Tools that Produce Many Outputs'

2004-02-06 Thread Schleicher Ralph (LLI)
Alexandre Duret-Lutz writes: > Eric> On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 11:28:29PM +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > >> One of the output (here `data.c') is used as a witness of the run of > >> `foo'. [...] > > Eric> Hmm. I understand what you're saying here, but "witness" seems > Eric> an odd choice of

Re: RFC: doc for `Handling Tools that Produce Many Outputs'

2004-02-06 Thread Bernd Jendrissek
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 01:11:35PM +0100, Schleicher Ralph (LLI) wrote: > Alexandre Duret-Lutz writes: > > Eric> On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 11:28:29PM +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > > >> One of the output (here `data.c') is used as a witness of the

Re: RFC: doc for `Handling Tools that Produce Many Outputs'

2004-02-06 Thread Eric Siegerman
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 01:00:04PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > témoin = { witness, indicator, evidence } > > [...] > > IMHO, indicator would be best. That's just what I was going to say, but you beat me to it :-) [Usually I avoid me-too pos

Re: ChangeLogs included in dist

2004-02-06 Thread Bruce Korb
Ben Elliston wrote: > > Automake will currently include a file called "ChangeLog" in the > distribution. Many large projects use a scheme of appending a number > to ChangeLogs when the files are rotated. For example, GCC uses: > > ChangeLog > ChangeLog.0 > ... > ChangeLog.10 > > Can I

about requiring Perl 5.6 in Automake 1.9

2004-02-06 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
Right now, automake officially requires at least Perl 5.005. Perl 5.005_03 will be 5 years old next month, and supporting it is becoming painful. The 1.8 release had a bug that caused it to fail with Perl 5.005_03 and despite numerous beta releases, it was only reported later. Recently it was re

Re: about requiring Perl 5.6 in Automake 1.9

2004-02-06 Thread Bruce Korb
Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > How many people would be annoyed by this? Not me :-) > Is there any reason why this would be a very bad idea? It is inconsistent? The auto* tools (viz. autoconf) still assumes a shell that has no functions. This makes the config script incredibly larger and slow

Re: about requiring Perl 5.6 in Automake 1.9

2004-02-06 Thread Andreas Schwab
Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > >> Is there any reason why this would be a very bad idea? > > It is inconsistent? The auto* tools (viz. autoconf) still > assumes a shell that has no functions. This makes the config > script incredibly larger and slower than

better than víagra

2004-02-06 Thread Raphael W. Donaldson

Re: about requiring Perl 5.6 in Automake 1.9

2004-02-06 Thread Guido Draheim
Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: Right now, automake officially requires at least Perl 5.005. Perl 5.005_03 will be 5 years old next month, and supporting it is becoming painful. > [] How many people would be annoyed by this? Is there any reason why this would be a very bad idea? I know some peo

Conditional problem

2004-02-06 Thread Jose Roman Bilbao
Hi, What is wrong with this piece of code? It always says that there is no OpenGL although it has been found: #checking for OpenGL MDL_HAVE_OPENGL if test -z "$GL_LIBS" then AC_MSG_RESULT([GL libs not found, OpenGL disabled.]) else if test -z "$GL_CFLAGS" then