>>
>> For me, requiring this means that I can no longer compile on Linux as
>> I don't have the appropriate rights there to update automake.
>>
>
>You can still use cmake, aren't you?
>
>Abdel.
>
Yes.
Vincent
On 04/06/2010 05:42 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote:
no i see in unpatched sources :
New in 1.10.1:
- "make dist" can now create lzma-compressed tarballs.
so my proposal is lo use lzma from dependency and compression ratio
reasons.
OK, the NEWS file for 1.11 does not cont
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Yes, probably something like that for now.
i'll put it in.
> > +#Wait some time for bumping automake 1.11, which knows this.
> > +lyxdist: dist
> > + bunzip2 $(PACKAGE)-$(VERSION).tar.bz2
> > + xz -9 $(PACKAGE)-$(VERSION).tar
> > + ls -hl $(PACKAGE)-$(VERSION).
Pavel Sanda writes:
> like this. ugly, but wont diturb other people.
> opinions?
Yes, probably something like that for now.
> +#Wait some time for bumping automake 1.11, which knows this.
> +lyxdist: dist
> + bunzip2 $(PACKAGE)-$(VERSION).tar.bz2
> + xz -9 $(PACKAGE)-$(VERSION).tar
> +
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> if really wanted we can produce lzma/xz by new hardcoded target in automake
> file.
like this. ugly, but wont diturb other people.
opinions?
pavel
diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am
index 50977a2..decdf4c 100644
--- a/Makefile.am
+++ b/Makefile.am
@@ -25,6 +25,12 @@ EXTR
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> I probably can manage to get it back up running. However, it's annoying to
> update things, find workarounds, while I absolutely don't see any advantage
> at all.
ok, i think its better to spend your time on bugs than on hassling with automake
business. i'll bring
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 12:40:27AM +0200, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> Luckily, in the end, it was possible to
> compile on Windows without the hassle of cygwin/mingw.
He, he... That only demonstrates how opinions can differ.
AFAIC, luckily, it is possible to compile on Windows with
cygwin/min
Vincent van Ravesteijn writes:
> Anyway, I'd prefer not to bump the requirements without a necessity or
> clear reason. It only might turn off users/possible developers and so
> forth. As I'm not a Linux guy at all, I really don't care how the
> tarballs are compressed, and if it's only needed for
Pavel Sanda schreef:
Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote:
For me, requiring this means that I can no longer compile on Linux as I
don't have the appropriate rights there to update automake.
btw what distro you use? isn't possible there is more automake-xx versions
installed on your syst
Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote:
> For me, requiring this means that I can no longer compile on Linux as I
> don't have the appropriate rights there to update automake.
btw what distro you use? isn't possible there is more automake-xx versions
installed on your system?
pavel
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 10:04:50PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote:
> > Maybe, I don't understand this well enough, but anyway, why do we
> > require automake 1.10.1 for everyone ? Even for people not using make
> > dist or the tarball at all.
>
> automake < 1.10.1 w
Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote:
> Maybe, I don't understand this well enough, but anyway, why do we
> require automake 1.10.1 for everyone ? Even for people not using make
> dist or the tarball at all.
automake < 1.10.1 will fail with the current tree because it wont
understand dist-lzma targe
"Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW" writes:
> Maybe, I don't understand this well enough, but anyway, why do we
> require automake 1.10.1 for everyone ? Even for people not using make
> dist or the tarball at all.
Because there is no way (that I know of) to test for automake version
and require lzma t
>> no i see in unpatched sources :
>> New in 1.10.1:
>> - "make dist" can now create lzma-compressed tarballs.
>>
>> so my proposal is lo use lzma from dependency and compression ratio
>> reasons.
>
>OK, the NEWS file for 1.11 does not contain the 1.10.x intermediate
>releases. So you should re
Pavel Sanda writes:
> no i see in unpatched sources :
> New in 1.10.1:
> - "make dist" can now create lzma-compressed tarballs.
>
> so my proposal is lo use lzma from dependency and compression ratio
> reasons.
OK, the NEWS file for 1.11 does not contain the 1.10.x intermediate
releases. So you
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 02/04/2010 01:21, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
>>> Support for xz and lzma have been added at the same time in automake.
>>
>> are you sure? my 1.10.3 generated makefile knows dist-lzma, but not
>> dist-xz
>> target. after hard fight i forced gentoo automake wrapper to ch
Uwe Stöhr writes:
>> What compression is used for windows installers, BTW?
>
> LZMA
Good.
JMarc
> What compression is used for windows installers, BTW?
LZMA
regards Uwe
Le 02/04/2010 01:21, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
Support for xz and lzma have been added at the same time in automake.
are you sure? my 1.10.3 generated makefile knows dist-lzma, but not dist-xz
target. after hard fight i forced gentoo automake wrapper to choose 1.11.1 and
dist-xz appeared.
This is
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>> 2/ lzma is deprecated by the almost equivalent but gnu .xz format.
>>
>> i know and tried both. there was no difference in compression ratio
>> and xz didn't looked to be supported by autotools yet. also except
>> arch, distros seems to accept lzma better.
>
> Suppor
Le 01/04/2010 23:46, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
1/ this means that we require automake 1.11 and autoconf 2.62. We should
make this clear.
you mean to add it to release notes?
No, in autogen.sh and INSTALL. Also in the INIT_AUTOMAKE call.
2/ lzma is deprecated by th
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> 1/ this means that we require automake 1.11 and autoconf 2.62. We should
> make this clear.
you mean to add it to release notes?
> 2/ lzma is deprecated by the almost equivalent but gnu .xz format.
i know and tried both. there was no difference in compression ratio
Le 01/04/2010 13:21, sa...@lyx.org a écrit :
Log:
Lets make tarballs via lzma instead of bzip2 from now on.
Ratios for alpha1:
tgz 16M
bzip2 12M
lzma 8.7M
That's a good gain indeed. What compression is used for windows
installers, BTW?
Two remarks:
1/ this means that we require automake 1.1
23 matches
Mail list logo
