On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 13:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 28 August 2005 01:43 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 12:50 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Sunday 28 August 2005 07:28 am, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 01:59 -0400, Mike Frysing
On Sunday 28 August 2005 01:43 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 12:50 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 28 August 2005 07:28 am, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 01:59 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 27 August 2005 03:38 pm, Martin Sch
On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 12:50 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 28 August 2005 07:28 am, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 01:59 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Saturday 27 August 2005 03:38 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 15:11 -0400, Mike Frysi
On Sunday 28 August 2005 07:28 am, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 01:59 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 27 August 2005 03:38 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 15:11 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 27 August 2005 02:58 pm, Martin S
On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 01:59 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 27 August 2005 03:38 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 15:11 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Saturday 27 August 2005 02:58 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > > > Which reminds me .. anybody going to scream
On Saturday 27 August 2005 03:38 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 15:11 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 27 August 2005 02:58 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > > Which reminds me .. anybody going to scream if I update elibtoolize()
> > > to be able to check if it was al
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 15:11 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 27 August 2005 02:58 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 14:37 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Saturday 27 August 2005 08:00 am, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > > > eautoreconf() {
> > > > lo
On Saturday 27 August 2005 02:58 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 14:37 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 27 August 2005 08:00 am, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > > eautoreconf() {
> > > local aclocal_opts
> > >
> > > [[ -n ${M4DIR} ]] && aclocal_o
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 14:37 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 27 August 2005 08:00 am, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > eautoreconf() {
> > local aclocal_opts
> >
> > [[ -n ${M4DIR} ]] && aclocal_opts="-I ${M4DIR}"
> >
> > eaclocal $aclocal_opts
> > eaut
On Saturday 27 August 2005 08:00 am, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> eautoreconf() {
> local aclocal_opts
>
> [[ -n ${M4DIR} ]] && aclocal_opts="-I ${M4DIR}"
>
> eaclocal $aclocal_opts
> eautoconf
> eautoheader
> eautomake
> gnuconfig_updat
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 17:51 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 04:24:40PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > I still think a autoreconf is usually enough, except for cases where
> > that do not work,
>
> And what is "not work" in this case?
> - fails with an error so it's
On Saturday 27 August 2005 18:11, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The circular autothing <-> wrapper dependency will be phased out at
> some point in the future once all auto* deps properly specify versions.
> The aim is to remove the need to install certain obscure auto* slots
> that are becoming rarer a
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:05:19 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Saturday 27 August 2005 17:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > I don't like it. It removes the ability to DEPEND (which you spelt
| > wrong, btw) upon the correct auto* version.
| Yeah I know I typoed.
| About
On Saturday 27 August 2005 17:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> I don't like it. It removes the ability to DEPEND (which you spelt
> wrong, btw) upon the correct auto* version.
Yeah I know I typoed.
About the version.. well you just can't depend upon a specified version
anyway.
When you depend on whate
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:00:06 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Attached there's an "autotools" eclass, it's basically a way to give
| more information to the user while providing an epatch-like die
| message. the eauto* calls are directly calls to the original command,
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 04:24:40PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> I still think a autoreconf is usually enough, except for cases where
> that do not work,
And what is "not work" in this case?
- fails with an error so it's impossible to miss as a dev, or
- fails to do things properly, causing s
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 16:24 +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 14:00 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > I was wondering last night with az about the handling of autotools.
> > They not always require to be re-run by scratch, but when you have to run
> > aclocal you usu
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 14:00 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> I was wondering last night with az about the handling of autotools.
> They not always require to be re-run by scratch, but when you have to run
> aclocal you usually have to run everything after that.
> Every ebuild handles them
I was wondering last night with az about the handling of autotools.
They not always require to be re-run by scratch, but when you have to run
aclocal you usually have to run everything after that.
Every ebuild handles them in a different way, some ebuilds run them in a &&
list and then || die, ot
19 matches
Mail list logo
