Ok. Script it is, I guess. Still no reason to install migcom in bindir.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Hello!
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 12:14:53AM +0100, I wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 04:28:00PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Using gcc driver with a custom specs file is probably not really hard.
>
> I had a look. After having read about that specs file language I first
> was under the same i
> But it now seems to me that the specs file language is not powerful
elaborate
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Hello!
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 04:28:00PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Using gcc driver with a custom specs file is probably not really hard.
I had a look. After having read about that specs file language I first
was under the same impression and was full of enthousiasm to do that.
But it now
Using gcc driver with a custom specs file is probably not really hard.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 04:08:38PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> The idea that you want to run migcom is what's a workaround.
Hm. Then I see two possibilities: a) implement handling for a number of
GCC's command line arguments into the `mig' shell script or b) somehow
make `migcom' work as a rea
The idea that you want to run migcom is what's a workaround.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Hello!
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 01:31:34PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I am skeptical that's a good idea.
Why?
> Why not just add switches as desired to the script to provide a simpler
> way to run it? e.g. mig --raw or suchlike.
Hm. That seems a bit like a workaround to me. There are a lo
Barry deFreese wrote:
> Constantine,
I'm speaking out of my ass as usual but I assume he suggested Ben
because we would prefer using argp and Ben is the argp master. But what
you have looks reasonable.
Barry, this is the kind of sincerety i like in a man. Thank you
for your explanation.
Constantine Kousoulos wrote:
Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hello!
In the GNU MIG package, I'd like to move the `migcom' program out of
`[exec_prefix]/libexec/' (which is where is currently is being
installed)
and install it alongside the `mig' program into `[exec_prefix]/bin/' for
being able to use
I am skeptical that's a good idea. Why not just add switches as desired to
the script to provide a simpler way to run it? e.g. mig --raw or suchlike.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hello!
In the GNU MIG package, I'd like to move the `migcom' program out of
`[exec_prefix]/libexec/' (which is where is currently is being installed)
and install it alongside the `mig' program into `[exec_prefix]/bin/' for
being able to use it directly, avoiding constructs
Hello!
In the GNU MIG package, I'd like to move the `migcom' program out of
`[exec_prefix]/libexec/' (which is where is currently is being installed)
and install it alongside the `mig' program into `[exec_prefix]/bin/' for
being able to use it directly, avoiding constructs like ``$(MIG) -cc cat
-
13 matches
Mail list logo
