Re: CMake and the new merge option

2007-03-29 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 12:12:05AM +0100, José Matos wrote: > On Wednesday 28 March 2007 8:01:18 pm Andre Poenitz wrote: > > Sure, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that the rpms > > not necessarily have to be build from the srpm as long as the result > > is the same. Even in C++ there

Re: CMake and the new merge option

2007-03-28 Thread José Matos
On Wednesday 28 March 2007 8:01:18 pm Andre Poenitz wrote: > Sure, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that the rpms not > necessarily have to be build from the srpm as long as the result is the > same. Even in C++ there is the "as-if" rule... And you apply them in the same machine yo

Re: CMake and the new merge option

2007-03-28 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > But your want the srpm anyway... | | Sure, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that the rpms not | necessarily have to be build from the srpm as long as the result is the | same. Even in C++ there is the "as-if" rule... But you have to do

Re: CMake and the new merge option

2007-03-28 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 07:24:36PM +0100, José Matos wrote: | > On Monday 26 March 2007 4:47:24 pm Andre Poenitz wrote: | > > | > > There is no need for an srpm when building an rpm. One can | > > put arbitrary files in the %files section of the spec fil

Re: CMake and the new merge option

2007-03-28 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 08:55:28PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 03:54:17PM +0100, José Matos wrote: > | > On Monday 26 March 2007 3:43:42 pm Andre Poenitz wrote: > | > > Quick full build is btw what is needed for the rp

Re: CMake and the new merge option

2007-03-28 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
José Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Monday 26 March 2007 4:47:24 pm Andre Poenitz wrote: | > | > There is no need for an srpm when building an rpm. One can | > put arbitrary files in the %files section of the spec file, | > including binaries. | | So you are proposing to package the fin

Re: CMake and the new merge option

2007-03-28 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 03:54:17PM +0100, José Matos wrote: | > On Monday 26 March 2007 3:43:42 pm Andre Poenitz wrote: | > > Quick full build is btw what is needed for the rpmdist target | > | > I agree. | > | > > [If we stick to the "pristine sourc

Re: CMake and the new merge option

2007-03-28 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 07:24:36PM +0100, José Matos wrote: > On Monday 26 March 2007 4:47:24 pm Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > > There is no need for an srpm when building an rpm. One can > > put arbitrary files in the %files section of the spec file, > > including binaries. > > So you are proposin

Re: CMake and the new merge option

2007-03-27 Thread José Matos
On Monday 26 March 2007 4:47:24 pm Andre Poenitz wrote: > > There is no need for an srpm when building an rpm. One can > put arbitrary files in the %files section of the spec file, > including binaries. So you are proposing to package the final product and the simply copy it to the final destin

Re: CMake and the new merge option

2007-03-26 Thread Peter Kümmel
Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Some numbers with MSVC2005: > > debug mode, full build: 6 minutes > debug mode, text.C changed: 3 minutes > release mode, full build: 6 minutes > release mode, text.C changed: 2 minutes > > So this option is excellent for quick full build but not very useful for > devel

Re: CMake and the new merge option

2007-03-26 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 03:54:17PM +0100, José Matos wrote: > On Monday 26 March 2007 3:43:42 pm Andre Poenitz wrote: > > Quick full build is btw what is needed for the rpmdist target > > I agree. > > > [If we stick to the "pristine sources" dogma...] > > How do you intend to build an rpm wi

Re: CMake and the new merge option

2007-03-26 Thread José Matos
On Monday 26 March 2007 3:43:42 pm Andre Poenitz wrote: > Quick full build is btw what is needed for the rpmdist target I agree. > [If we stick to the "pristine sources" dogma...] How do you intend to build an rpm without a srpm? > Andre' -- José Abílio

Re: CMake and the new merge option

2007-03-26 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:41:51PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > By the way Peter, -Dmerge=0 does not work. > > Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > >Some numbers with MSVC2005: > > > >debug mode, full build: 6 minutes > >debug mode, text.C changed: 3 minutes > >release mode, full build: 6 minutes > >re

Re: CMake and the new merge option

2007-03-26 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 12:40:26PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Some numbers with MSVC2005: > > debug mode, full build: 6 minutes > debug mode, text.C changed: 3 minutes > release mode, full build: 6 minutes > release mode, text.C changed: 2 minutes > > So this option is excellent for quick

Re: CMake and the new merge option

2007-03-26 Thread Abdelrazak Younes
By the way Peter, -Dmerge=0 does not work. Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Some numbers with MSVC2005: debug mode, full build: 6 minutes debug mode, text.C changed: 3 minutes release mode, full build: 6 minutes release mode, text.C changed: 2 minutes So this option is excellent for quick full build b

CMake and the new merge option

2007-03-26 Thread Abdelrazak Younes
Some numbers with MSVC2005: debug mode, full build: 6 minutes debug mode, text.C changed: 3 minutes release mode, full build: 6 minutes release mode, text.C changed: 2 minutes So this option is excellent for quick full build but not very useful for developing unfortunately. Abdel.