l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hello,
>
> I was under the impression that Windows users would often prefer
> software that requires “only” MinGW, as opposed to the more heavyweight
> Cygwin. From that point of view a MinGW port seems to be useful,
> especially if Guile does part of the
On Tue 23 Mar 2010 07:59, Ken Raeburn writes:
> The build farms are a good improvement; we should try to get as much
> variety there as we can. And maybe some sort of alert (bot messages to
> #guile ?) when a build fails...
Subscribe to guile-comm...@gnu.org :)
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
On Mar 22, 2010, at 20:04, Neil Jerram wrote:
> Ken Raeburn writes:
>> Yes... you then also need to decide if Guile is exposing GNU/POSIX
>> functionality, whatever the native OS functionality is, or some
>> abstraction...
>
> Ideally, yes, I think. In other words, I think it's preferable if Gui
Linas Vepstas writes:
> My pet peeve with mingw is the lack of ready-to-go regex. This is completely
> unrelated to guile; I have another project that made the mistake of assuming
> that regex "just worked" on windows, and I've been bitched at ever
> since.
Gnulib has a regex library.
> Getting
Peter Brett writes:
> Neil Jerram writes:
>
>> I've been making gradual progress on MinGW cross building, but I've
>> reached a point where I'm no longer sure that this is worthwhile. This
>> email explains why, and invites comments from anyone interested in this
>> - especially from anyone who
Ken Raeburn writes:
> Yes... you then also need to decide if Guile is exposing GNU/POSIX
> functionality, whatever the native OS functionality is, or some
> abstraction...
Ideally, yes, I think. In other words, I think it's preferable if Guile
provides the same function to applications on all p
Ken Raeburn writes:
> One nagging concern I've got about my Guile-Emacs project is the
> seemingly narrow focus of active Guile developers as far as platforms
> are concerned. I'm one of, what, two or three people testing the
> development versions on Mac OS X now and then, and most of the rest
Hi!
On Mon 22 Mar 2010 02:28, Ken Raeburn writes:
> I think cross-compilation and cross-testing is a good thing to be able
> to do.
Totally agreed. I'd like to start compiling Guile for ARM devices now.
> Perhaps having build farms available with multiple platform types can
> help there.
Ther
On 22 March 2010 14:00, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Hi Peter (& Neil & co),
>
> On Mon 22 Mar 2010 09:10, Peter Brett writes:
>>
>> We get people coming to the gEDA user mailing list on a regular basis
>> saying, "Where can I find a version of gEDA for Windows?" and the
>> Windows builds we've put out ha
Hi Peter (& Neil & co),
On Mon 22 Mar 2010 09:10, Peter Brett writes:
> Neil Jerram writes:
>
>> I've been making gradual progress on MinGW cross building, but I've
>> reached a point where I'm no longer sure that this is worthwhile. This
>> email explains why, and invites comments from anyone
On Mar 21, 2010, at 16:51, Neil Jerram wrote:
> First, I've found that completing a successful build (i.e. autogen.sh,
> configure and make) is not at all the end of the story; it's only the
> first part of what is really needed - because at runtime some key pieces
> of function can still be missin
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Neil Jerram wrote:
> This email explains why, and invites comments from anyone interested in this
> - especially from anyone who is really trying to use Guile on Windows.
I've decided only to run UNIX origin software on Cygwin as there is
always some "gotcha" that
I've been making gradual progress on MinGW cross building, but I've
reached a point where I'm no longer sure that this is worthwhile. This
email explains why, and invites comments from anyone interested in this
- especially from anyone who is really trying to use Guile on Windows.
First, I've fou
13 matches
Mail list logo
