Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] Renaming extension options consistently

2010-11-10 Thread Caolán McNamara
On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 05:29 +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > Icecream has the advantage that it has a scheduler, and chooses the > fastest and least loaded machines in the farm. The other convenience I find with icecream is with heterogeneous installs, i.e. it auto-packages up the clients gcc and se

Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] Renaming extension options consistently

2010-11-10 Thread Wols Lists
On 10/11/10 07:05, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 05:29:34 +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote: >>> 1) if the user specifies max-cpus, do we want max-jobs to default to >>> max-cpus? Because that does make sense afaict. >> The buildsystem is a bit strange in this regard ;-) There are 2 leve

Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] Renaming extension options consistently

2010-11-10 Thread Kevin Hunter
At 2:05am -0500 Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: +1 for quiet down the icecream advertisment a bit, we should rather put instructions for that in our wiki. If someone configured to use distcc, we should not output icecream related stuff at all. So who comes up with a patch :-)? For the

Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] Renaming extension options consistently

2010-11-10 Thread Kevin Hunter
At 2:05am -0500 Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: +1 for quiet down the icecream advertisment a bit, we should rather put instructions for that in our wiki. If someone configured to use distcc, we should not output icecream related stuff at all. So who comes up with a patch :-)? My only

Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] Renaming extension options consistently

2010-11-09 Thread Sebastian Spaeth
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 05:29:34 +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > > 1) if the user specifies max-cpus, do we want max-jobs to default to > > max-cpus? Because that does make sense afaict. > > The buildsystem is a bit strange in this regard ;-) There are 2 levels > of what is done in parallel - one on t

Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] Renaming extension options consistently

2010-11-09 Thread Jan Holesovsky
Hi Wol, Wols Lists píše v Pá 05. 11. 2010 v 18:04 +: > On 05/11/10 17:13, Niko Rönkkö wrote: > > dnl > === > > dnl Optional Packages (--with/without-) > > dnl > ===

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] Renaming extension options consistently

2010-11-05 Thread Niko Rönkkö
Renamed all extensions to --enable-ext-* because "we do want to present them together in ./configure --help" Deprecated old options not removed but commented instead. Fixed: --without-java (from Wol) --- configure.in | 296 -- 1 files

Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] Renaming extension options consistently

2010-11-05 Thread Wols Lists
On 05/11/10 18:12, Niko Rönkkö wrote: > +AC_ARG_WITH(java, > +[ > + --with-java Build LibO with a JDK & Java support.], > +,) > + There's a patch of mine waiting to fix this ... And seeing as java is enabled by default, it seemed that it should be "--without-java Build LibO without a

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] Renaming extension options consistently

2010-11-05 Thread Niko Rönkkö
Renamed all extensions to --enable-ext-* because "we do want to present them together in ./configure --help" Deprecated old options not removed but commented instead. Fixed: --with-java --- configure.in | 296 -- 1 files changed, 205 i

Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] Renaming extension options consistently

2010-11-05 Thread Wols Lists
On 05/11/10 17:13, Niko Rönkkö wrote: > dnl === > dnl Optional Packages (--with/without-) > dnl === > @@ -1214,103 +1369,97 @@ AC_ARG_WITH(max-jobs, > Defaults

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] Renaming extension options consistently

2010-11-05 Thread Niko Rönkkö
Renamed all extensions to --enable-ext-* because "we do want to present them together in ./configure --help" See: b765a28ea9d63b60a14786b1a5484227175d413e Deprecated old options not removed but commented instead. ¡There are still extensions which are only in build/configure.in! Changed BUILD_