On 09/25/2011 01:22 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
I can't find development/cmake/CMakeLists.txt in the trunk, but only
in 2_0_X. What's going on there? What am I missing?
We moved it into the src tree. So it's now in src/CMakeLists.txt.
That one didn't work. I also found one in the root
Am Sonntag, 25. September 2011 schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn:
> Op 25-9-2011 13:11, PhilipPirrip schreef:
> > Guys, let me hijack the thread, the question is related only to cmake.
> > I'm trying to use Qt-creator following instructions on
> > http://blog.oak-tree.us/index.php/2010/06/25/lyx-outli
Op 25-9-2011 13:11, PhilipPirrip schreef:
Guys, let me hijack the thread, the question is related only to cmake.
I'm trying to use Qt-creator following instructions on
http://blog.oak-tree.us/index.php/2010/06/25/lyx-outline02-1
I can't find development/cmake/CMakeLists.txt in the trunk, but o
Guys, let me hijack the thread, the question is related only to cmake.
I'm trying to use Qt-creator following instructions on
http://blog.oak-tree.us/index.php/2010/06/25/lyx-outline02-1
I can't find development/cmake/CMakeLists.txt in the trunk, but only in
2_0_X. What's going on there? What
On 21/09/2011 10:07 AM, Peter Kuemmel wrote:
On 09/09/2011 2:24 PM, Julien Rioux wrote:
Nevertheless, it would be good to have it consistent between autoconf
and cmake. I'm not sure whether I prefer cmake to move the tex2lyx
binary to a tex2lyx subdir, or autoconf to move all binaries to the
> On 09/09/2011 2:24 PM, Julien Rioux wrote:
> > Nevertheless, it would be good to have it consistent between autoconf
> > and cmake. I'm not sure whether I prefer cmake to move the tex2lyx
> > binary to a tex2lyx subdir, or autoconf to move all binaries to the same
> > bin dir. I do feel that ve
On 09/09/2011 2:24 PM, Julien Rioux wrote:
Nevertheless, it would be good to have it consistent between autoconf
and cmake. I'm not sure whether I prefer cmake to move the tex2lyx
binary to a tex2lyx subdir, or autoconf to move all binaries to the same
bin dir. I do feel that version suffixes sho
Georg Baum wrote:
> I do not know the latest plans on the build system front. Is there any
> reason why it can not be dropped _right now_? This would prevent people from
> wasting time. I can do the removal if there is no important reason to keep
> scons.
yes or at least move to attic...
pavel
Op 12-9-2011 20:50, Georg Baum schreef:
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
I am going to try scons today and report back.
Scons is going to be dropped some time from now. So you might want to
spend your time in a more useful way.
I do not know the latest plans on the build system front. Is there
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
>> I am going to try scons today and report back.
>>
>
> Scons is going to be dropped some time from now. So you might want to
> spend your time in a more useful way.
I do not know the latest plans on the build system front. Is there any
reason why it can not be dr
Am Montag, 12. September 2011 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:
> Le 12/09/2011 08:55, Kornel a écrit :
> > In cmake you get suffixes in build-run, because it is easier to install
> > data without renaming them.
>
> The opposite was true for autoconf :) I do not have a preference for any
> of these, a
Le 12/09/2011 08:55, Kornel a écrit :
In cmake you get suffixes in build-run, because it is easier to install
data without renaming them.
The opposite was true for autoconf :) I do not have a preference for any
of these, actually. I suspect that changing $PACKAGE in autoconf to add
the suffix
Am Sonntag, 11. September 2011 schrieb Julien Rioux:
> On 11/09/2011 12:02 PM, Kornel wrote:
...
>
> With autoconf, when you `make` you get binaries, without suffix, in the
> src/ subdir of the build dir (and in the case of tex2lyx, in the
> src/tex2lyx subsubdir). This is the finicky part for me.
On 11/09/2011 12:02 PM, Kornel wrote:
Am Sonntag, 11. September 2011 schrieb Julien Rioux:
On 10/09/2011 1:07 PM, Kornel wrote:
...
I'm not sure whether I prefer cmake to move the tex2lyx
binary to a tex2lyx subdir, or autoconf to move all binaries to the
same bin dir. I do feel that version s
Am Sonntag, 11. September 2011 schrieb Julien Rioux:
> On 10/09/2011 1:07 PM, Kornel wrote:
...
> >>> I'm not sure whether I prefer cmake to move the tex2lyx
> >>> binary to a tex2lyx subdir, or autoconf to move all binaries to the
> >>> same bin dir. I do feel that version suffixes should be used
On 10/09/2011 1:07 PM, Kornel wrote:
There are often changes in autoconf, but no one (but Peter and me) cares for
cmake.
Sometimes even we are able to miss a change.
In cmake LYX_PACKAGE_SUFFIX is used as a boolean, not a string.
Thanks, that explains the suffix. It's not overly important wh
Am Freitag, 9. September 2011 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:
> Le 09/09/2011 14:24, Julien Rioux a écrit :
> > under autoconf. But my LyX built by cmake uses ~/.lyx2.1/ as the user
> > directory instead of ~/.lyx-devel/ as I expected. This might be a wrong
> > configuration on my part.
>
> I would
On 09/09/2011 2:34 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
I am going to try scons today and report back.
Scons is going to be dropped some time from now. So you might want to
spend your time in a more useful way.
Vincent
I see. Good to know, thanks. The build failed but anyway there's not
mu
I am going to try scons today and report back.
Scons is going to be dropped some time from now. So you might want to
spend your time in a more useful way.
Vincent
Le 09/09/2011 14:24, Julien Rioux a écrit :
under autoconf. But my LyX built by cmake uses ~/.lyx2.1/ as the user
directory instead of ~/.lyx-devel/ as I expected. This might be a wrong
configuration on my part.
I would have expected that also.
Nevertheless, it would be good to have it consis
I tried building with cmake yesterday. A few observations.
Compiling from scratch went faster than autoconf.
From INSTALL.cmake I though that
-DLYX_PACKAGE_SUFFIX=-devel
would be the equivalent of
--with-version-suffix=-devel
under autoconf. But my LyX built by cmake uses ~/.lyx2.1/ as the u
21 matches
Mail list logo
