t;_SCRIPTS").
Is this our bug? Or might it be an automake bug in that, whereas a
typical "_SCRIPTS" entry "sss" can be maintained from a corresponding
"sss.in", alas "_PYTHON" cannot maintain a "ppp.py" from i
nd
libtool", (good book, by the way!) but otherwise I haven't seen anything.
Have I missed it? Is this idea totally somehow (how?) fundamentally
flawed?)
--
: David LeeI.T. Service :
: Systems Programmer Computer Cen
eed some help with the packaging details.
>
> 6) When I get going with Actual Code (TM) (within a couple of weeks),
> I'll setup a project on sourceforge for this.
No promises. But I could try to have a quick look at Solaris pkgadd/pkgrm
issues once you have got started.
--
aps
having "autopkg" separate from both automake and libtool may itself cause
problems. Perhaps it might be better if this functionality were to be
incoporated into automake itself, along with some hooks in libtool.
--
: David Lee
f autopkg uses "epm" initially and/or
ultimately.)
But whatever, it would be useful to firm up some direction soon.
Thanks for your work on this Geoffrey. Even if you feel unable to pursue
autopkg in the near future, I'm grateful for your
he
Internet, point your browser at http://www.perl.com/, the Perl Home Page.
#
One might be tempted to argue that anyone dabbling with automake will
already be a keen perl "bleeding edge" junkie; but I would urge caution
before leaping to that conclusion.
Hope that helps you
lity such as Class::Struct (and,
indeed, automake itself) code should be as generous as reasonably possible
in accepting older/lesser versions of whatever environment (Perl, OS, ...)
is out there.
Irrespective of the major win for automake, it would make Class::Struct
much more widely useabl
On 26 Mar 2001, Akim Demaille wrote:
> >>>>> "David" == David Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> David> Wouldn't it be cleaner to talk with the maintainers of
> David> Class::Struct with a view to making Class::Struct itself able
> Da
On 24 Apr 2001, Akim Demaille wrote:
> >>>>> "David" == David Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> David> Could you briefly summarise, please, what happened to that
> David> potentially very clean approach? Thanks.
>
> I did answer to th
ing it was either technically poor
or that the author is not happy/available/...
Could you briefly summarise, please, what happened to that potentially
very clean approach? Thanks.
--
: David LeeI.T. Service :
: Systems Programmer
ing
(especially as work on the next version of automake is so well in hand).
But information about it would be exceedingly useful, and any reasonable
solutions would be a nice bonus.
Thanks in advance.
--
: David LeeI.T. Service :
: Systems Programmer
errors.
Might you have some sort of statement in existence that we could beg,
steal or borrow, to reassure developers on our project?
Many thanks again.
> On Monday 25 June 2001 6:07 pm, David Lee wrote:
> > Background: we are trying to "autoconfiscate" the "linux-ha&qu
ge-provider may well be different parties;
1. If there is a weakness, root or otherwise, reasonable attempts should
be made to fix it, regardless of other considerations;
2. A non-root mindset should be encouraged. Indeed, I'd support a case
for a default of "if root then aba
13 matches
Mail list logo
