On Jan 26, 2010, at 8:10 AM, Daniel Bainton wrote:
2010/1/25 pancake :
I have been using make(1) and acr(1) for most of my projects for a
long while
acr seems to have the OS guessing quite bad. It checks if uname is the
GNU version and then adds -gnu to the system type if it is? What if
t
I'd say stay away from cmake. It's very complicated.
I'd like to try plan9 mk, but in the meantime, one more vote for good old make.
Andres
2010/1/25 pancake :
> I have been using make(1) and acr(1) for most of my projects for a long while
acr seems to have the OS guessing quite bad. It checks if uname is the
GNU version and then adds -gnu to the system type if it is? What if
the system is a uClibc based one that uses the GNU version
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 2009/11/24 Preben Randhol :
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:39:04 +
>> Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>>
>>> Why not? I think it should be possible to have very minimalist and
>>> specialized CAS', they managed to do that in the 50s and 60s, why not
>
anonymous wrote:
Radare INSTALL says "The WAF build system is supossed to replace the
ACR one.". This means that ACR is going to be replaced with WAF?
In the section "HOW TO COMPILE" there is "Standard way" with
configure && make && make install and "Alternative (going to be
deprecated)" based o
On Monday 25 January 2010, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On 2010-01-14, Yuval Hager wrote:
> > I am trying to send notifications using 'notify-send' (libnotify) and I
> > found out they work only if they are sent from tag 1.
> > otherwise, I get the following message from dbus-daemon:
> >
> > ,
> >
>
Are there plans to apply for Google Summer of Code, this year?
I ask because I want to apply as student.
meillo
Radare INSTALL says "The WAF build system is supossed to replace the
ACR one.". This means that ACR is going to be replaced with WAF?
In the section "HOW TO COMPILE" there is "Standard way" with
configure && make && make install and "Alternative (going to be
deprecated)" based on waf. This means t
I have been using make(1) and acr(1) for most of my projects for a long
while
and Im pretty happy with them. But I have to agree that make lacks so many
things and it is bloated enought to think on moving to mk(1).
Some projects like perl use perl (miniperl) to generate makefiles from
simplest
David,
I worked with the people at Kitware, Inc. for a while (here in
beautiful upstate New York), and they wrote and maintain CMake [1]. I
believe KDE, IIRC, has used CMake for a while now (which is at least a
testament to the complexity it can handle).
IMHO, CMake does not have a great syntax,
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 2:57 PM, anonymous wrote:
> Where programs should store their options? Sometimes it is said that
> global variables are bad, but what is better? Some huge structure
> storing all options? Of course, they can be divided into many
> structures or they can be passed on a stack
[2010-01-25 02:10] anonymous
> > TAOUP also recommends small programs that do just one thing. If you
> > have so many options that you need a "huge structure" to store them,
> > that might be a sign that your program is overly complex. Consider
> > factoring it into a set of smaller cooperating
Hi David,
2010/1/25 David Tweed :
> I'm wondering if anyone has had particularly good experiences with any
> meta-build system (cmake, etc) in the following circumstances:
>
> I will have a large codebase which consists of some generic files and
> some processor specific files. (I'm not worried ab
13 matches
Mail list logo
