On Friday 20 of April 2012, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> On Monday 16 of April 2012, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 01:50:00PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > > Is it possible to do the build also the other way around, i.e. e.g.
> > > "all but sc"?
> >
> > Not yet, feel free to add it
On Friday 20 of April 2012, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> On Monday 16 of April 2012, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 01:50:00PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > > Is it possible to do the build also the other way around, i.e. e.g.
> > > "all but sc"?
> >
> > Not yet, feel free to add it
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 01:50:00PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > Is it possible to do the build also the other way around, i.e. e.g. "all
> > but sc"?
>
> Not yet, feel free to add it if you think it is essential.
...
> > and if I understand t
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 01:50:00PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> Is it possible to do the build also the other way around, i.e. e.g. "all but
> sc"?
Not yet, feel free to add it if you think it is essential.
> If I work on something, I generally want to have also all its
> dependencies built with
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it should now be possible to build one (or more) libraries for debugging,
> while building the rest nondebug. Thanks for Tor giving the inspiration to
> this at the Hackfest!
Is it possible to do the build also the other way around, i
