On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:02:10AM -0800, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> "P. Christeas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I thought of that when I was trying to see why the make had been broken.
> > Unfortunately, the artsc-config script is not within "our" reach. Isn't the
> > makedep utility supposed to have compiler's options as parameters?
>
> No, how could it? There's no way to know about all possible options
> of all possible compilers. We should simply not use that broken config
> script at all, and look for the header files ourselves.
Wouldn't it make more sense to ask the authors of the artsc-config script
to fix it?
Ciao
J�rg
--
Joerg Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.
