I see no need to mess with the "missing" script for this (but I've
never understood what the missing script is ever good for, I just
guess it has to do with sometimes ignoring errors and then leaving
generated files like configure and Makefile.in unchanged).
Being able to run make and
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, the real problem is that the current configure ignores the
> problem completly. Would you be happy with changing the behaviour so
> that configure will print a warning if the program is missing,
Right, configure should definitely display a c
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could you also fix the mig check so that configure will barf it it
> cannot find it?
Having configure barf for such things can be really annoying. It's
nice to be able to check out the code and do things like autoreconf &&
./configure && make doc,
> Could you also fix the mig check so that configure will barf it
> it cannot find it?
Having configure barf for such things can be really annoying. It's
nice to be able to check out the code and do things like autoreconf
&& ./configure && make doc, even if some specialized tool nee
Just doing "configure; make" on GNU/Linux builds a working kernel.
Under the assumption ofcourse that uuencode and mig are
installed... If they aren't the compile process will break at some
later stage.
Cheers.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PRO
Thanks a lot! It is weird that there was no report send to
bug-hurd (yet) about the patch I've uploaded. Anyway, the patch
that I've uploaded is without the generated files.
Guess that savannahs email notification system is broken...
Cheers.
__
> I would suggest spliting it up, one kb patch, and one that
> touches autoconf stuff.
Why? Those other changes are quite small. And I just don't see
the point of splitting it up...
Because it is normal, usually apperciated and that they are three
completely different patches?
>
> Also, I think the _LOCAL functions may have to be preserved to permit
> bootstrapping. GCC faced the same problem, so they may have gotten the
> fixes into upstream autoconf.
I don't think there should be any kind of bootstrapping constraint for the
microkernel. It really doesn't matter what k
Marco, thanks for posting the patch on Savannah. I did this work before
as part of the automake'ifying, so I'll compare it against what I have
and also test a bootstrap with it.
It'll take me a couple of days.
An initial comment is that:
AC_ARG_ENABLE(kmsg,
[ --enable-kmsgenable
Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marco, thanks for posting the patch on Savannah. I did this work before
> as part of the automake'ifying, so I'll compare it against what I have
> and also test a bootstrap with it.
Thanks a lot! It is weird that there was no report send to bug-hurd
(ye
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I've included the regenerated autoconf output in this patch
>(configure, etc.).
>
> Eech, don't. No need to bloat the patch with unneeded info that can
> be regenerated.
Yeah, that was stupid. :)
>The queues of the keyboard driver wer
I've included the regenerated autoconf output in this patch
(configure, etc.).
Eech, don't. No need to bloat the patch with unneeded info that can
be regenerated.
The queues of the keyboard driver were not initialized until the
device was opened, this caused a crash if a user presse
> I've also updated the NEWS file and set the version to 1.4.
About the news file. I said it supports gcc 3.4 now. I'm not
completely sure about this. Alfred, did you make it work with 3.3
or 3.4?
3.4 hasn't been released yet, so there is no point in testing it. And
last time I ch
Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> I've also updated the NEWS file and set the version to 1.4.
About the news file. I said it supports gcc 3.4 now. I'm not
completely sure about this. Alfred, did you make it work with 3.3 or
3.4?
Thanks,
Marco
Marco, can you please do that without including the diff of generated
files (configure, etc.) It's a bit hard to tell what actually needs
reviewing when it's like this.
Tks,
Jeff Bailey
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:13:46PM +0100, Marco Gerards wrote:
> The difference between oskit mach and gnumach 1.x is that gnumach 1.x
> has a console device. When you write to this device you will write to
> the screen (please correct me if I'm wrong). I assume the right fix
> will be using devi
Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marco, can you please do that without including the diff of generated
> files (configure, etc.) It's a bit hard to tell what actually needs
> reviewing when it's like this.
Ah, ok. I usually read it by skipping a file by searching for the
next +++. Do
17 matches
Mail list logo
