Re: [fossil-users] TH1 - make 1d list from 2d list?
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:24:28 -0700
Higham, Paul phig...@sjm.com wrote:
but I suspect that TH1 has neither dictionaries nor the {*} operator.
How about
set oneDlist
foreach pair $twoDlist {lappend oneDlist [lindex $pair 0]}
No foreach and lappend available either...
Paul Higham
Tel +1 408 522 6225
phig...@sjm.com
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil
On 09:59 PM, Nathaniel R. Reindl wrote: Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a CMake-based build script? The GNU autotools have a lot of traction in the community, and a wide variety of people are familiar with them. This makes a compelling case alone for adopting the toolset Unless you intend to build on Windows, in which case you'll maintain a separate build system for that platform. Or you use an IDE, which will need its own build files. In fact, if you use anything other than a text console on *nix, you may want to consider a different build tool. If my opinion counted (it doesn't, I haven't contributed code to Fossil) I would support CMake. But Fossil's sources are heavily preprocessed and it may only be possible to build them in a *nix shell environment. Regards, Twylite ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: If you have a way other than autoconf to generate a universal build script that runs on any unix machine without special software installed, then that will be fine. CMake does not qualify because it is not installed by default on most unix boxes. I think autoconf is probably going to be the only general-purpose solution, but I am open to alternatives if you have them. /bin/sh it's not nearly as painful as the Auto, my ass! Tools. -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa g...@atmarama.netwrote: What about Python dependency? Is it acceptable? Python is on my iMac and my Linux desktop. But it is not installed on the OpenBSD 4.7 system that I use for testing. Perhaps in a few more years Python will have become sufficiently universal to be useful for this, but it is not there yet. So, no, python is not yet an acceptable dependency given that autoconf has already demonstrated that a Bourne shell is all you really need. In that case I can think about waf (http://code.google.com/p/waf/) which is single python script to be included with the project. Samba is one bigger project adopting waf. Sincerely, Gour -- “In the material world, conceptions of good and bad are all mental speculations…” (Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu) http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil
actually autoconf requires GNU M4, and somehow tends to bring automake and libtool to your system as well. 2011/6/14 Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa g...@atmarama.net wrote: What about Python dependency? Is it acceptable? Python is on my iMac and my Linux desktop. But it is not installed on the OpenBSD 4.7 system that I use for testing. Perhaps in a few more years Python will have become sufficiently universal to be useful for this, but it is not there yet. So, no, python is not yet an acceptable dependency given that autoconf has already demonstrated that a Bourne shell is all you really need. In that case I can think about waf (http://code.google.com/p/waf/) which is single python script to be included with the project. Samba is one bigger project adopting waf. Sincerely, Gour -- “In the material world, conceptions of good and bad are all mental speculations…” (Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu) http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- Alexander Vladimirov idkfa at idkfa dot org dot ru ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil
On Jun 14, 2011, at 13:37 , Richard Hipp wrote: What about Python dependency? Is it acceptable? Python is on my iMac and my Linux desktop. But it is not installed on the OpenBSD 4.7 system that I use for testing. Perhaps in a few more years Python will have become sufficiently universal to be useful for this, but it is not there yet. So, no, python is not yet an acceptable dependency given that autoconf has already demonstrated that a Bourne shell is all you really need. But on the other hand, Python is easier to get on Windows than Bourne shell... Still with this kind of requirements (should work on *bsd on a toaster) it's probably best to stick with autotools, no matter how much pain is that :/ Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil
On Jun 14, 2011, at 13:45 , Alexander Vladimirov wrote: actually autoconf requires GNU M4, and somehow tends to bring automake and libtool to your system as well. Yeah, that's for the developers. But users just need to run the Bourne shell configure script. Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil
On Jun 14, 2011, at 13:45 , Alexander Vladimirov wrote: actually autoconf requires GNU M4, and somehow tends to bring automake and libtool to your system as well. Yeah, that's for the developers. But users just need to run the Bourne shell configure script. As an intermediate stage, a simple script to put the output of uname -s into the Makefile might be a way to get going? http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?r=configure-make autotools are a bit of a nightmare, and possibly overkill for a project which is so inherently portable and self-contained. Ben -- http://bens.me.uk/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil
2011-06-14 01:27 keltezéssel, Richard Hipp írta: On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Steve Havelka smh...@gmail.com mailto:smh...@gmail.com wrote: Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a CMake-based build script? ccmake is not installed by default on either my iMac nor my SuSE Linux desktop. So it a a non-starter. If you have a way other than autoconf to generate a universal build script that runs on any unix machine without special software installed, then that will be fine. CMake does not qualify because it is not installed by default on most unix boxes. I think autoconf is probably going to be the only general-purpose solution, but I am open to alternatives if you have them. What about autosetup? You find informations here: http://msteveb.github.com/autosetup/ Regards, Feri ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil
On Jun 14, 2011, at 14:06 , Ben Summers wrote: As an intermediate stage, a simple script to put the output of uname -s into the Makefile might be a way to get going? http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?r=configure-make autotools are a bit of a nightmare, and possibly overkill for a project which is so inherently portable and self-contained. Nope, there's need for more than just that - see the first post. You can try to get all that done without autohell, but I guess that shortly it will reach the same amount of pain. The only other way I see it is if Waf or some other nicer buildsystem could emit a configure shell script... Gour, can Waf do that? Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More merge problems with renames
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 06:24:16AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: 2011/6/2 Lluís Batlle i Rossell virik...@gmail.com What do you think about the problem? Do you understand it already, or you would really like a repository with the troubles, in order to start? I'd have to recreate one artificially, to show the problems, as I've only seen that in the private repository we use (which we use extensively). Please send a reproducible test case if you can. Got it! I had to understand the trouble in even more detail to get the case. You have the repository there attached. We are hitting this trouble almost once every week, having to tweak the merges so our files don't disappear. http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/tktview/554f44ee74e3d3b9b24edd358f2bc3d8284f9ce5 I hope you can dedicate some time to fix it. It would solve us many headaches. And even more to those who are not aware of the magically disappearing files. Regards, Lluís. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Williams, Brian bwilli...@informatica.comwrote: Has anyone thrown themselves on this grenade yet? If not, I can take a look at autoconf. If you haven't already got any grey hairs then you'll have some soon. Good luck! -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Williams, Brian bwilli...@informatica.com wrote: Has anyone thrown themselves on this grenade yet? If not, I can take a look at autoconf. I got a chat message from someone who said they would take a look. Surely the autoconf for Fossil won't be to hard? All it needs to do is check for a couple of libraries and set a few options based on --with-X flags. -Original Message- From: fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org [mailto:fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org] On Behalf Of Remigiusz Modrzejewski Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:12 AM To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil On Jun 14, 2011, at 14:06 , Ben Summers wrote: As an intermediate stage, a simple script to put the output of uname -s into the Makefile might be a way to get going? http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?r=configure-make autotools are a bit of a nightmare, and possibly overkill for a project which is so inherently portable and self-contained. Nope, there's need for more than just that - see the first post. You can try to get all that done without autohell, but I guess that shortly it will reach the same amount of pain. The only other way I see it is if Waf or some other nicer buildsystem could emit a configure shell script... Gour, can Waf do that? Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: Surely the autoconf for Fossil won't be to hard? All it needs to do is check for a couple of libraries and set a few options based on --with-X flags. In my experience, it's not getting the project set up which is problematic, but fixing all the macro incompatibilities every time the auto tools are updated by one minor revision (and i was never quite sure what they were automating, since i always had to expend so much effort to make them work). i spent hundreds of hours back at the start of the century fighting with it, but eventually gave up on them, wrote my own version accommodating only Unix-like systems hosting GNU tools, and that's all i've used every since. -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:27:49 -0400 Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Steve Havelka smh...@gmail.com wrote: Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a CMake-based build script? ccmake is not installed by default on either my iMac nor my SuSE Linux desktop. So it a a non-starter. If you have a way other than autoconf to generate a universal build script that runs on any unix machine without special software installed, then that will be fine. CMake does not qualify because it is not installed by default on most unix boxes. I think autoconf is probably going to be the only general-purpose solution, but I am open to alternatives if you have them. I feel compelled to point out that installed by default on most unix boxes isn't a realistic requirement. I'd say it eliminates autoconf because it isn't installed by default on any of *my* Unix boxes (all running OpenSolaris or FreeBSD). For that matter, a C compiler isn't installed by default on OpenSolaris or most of the GNU/Linux distros I'm familiar with, so by that definition you can't build fossil without special software installed on those systems. For most unix and unix-like systems, a more appropriate requirement would be is available from the package system. I.e. - it's something that can be trivially installed, without having to configure or build or chase dependencies for it. Since Windows and OSX don't come with package systems, that won't work for them, but having a binary build available from the authors should meet the goal of being trivial to install. mike -- Mike Meyer m...@mired.org http://www.mired.org/ Independent Software developer/SCM consultant, email for more information. O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 05:42:49PM +0200, Stephan Beal wrote: Another suggestion nobody has made yet: jam. It can be distributed in static-binary form directly with the source tree (i've seen this done in a couple projects, and i know it can build on some rather obscure systems). i can't personally speak for jam's usability - read about it but never used it myself. It takes 2GB of RAM for jam to build boost, compilers and linkers apart. I don't think it scales any well. In my projects I use cmake, but I don't know how portable it is beyond the usual OSes around. I've used it succesfully for cross-compilation too, without troubles. I clearly understand the advantages of a good autotools *result*: a shell script that works in many places. That's outstanding compared to the rest of tools proposed, so although I will not do the work on making fossil autotools-ready, I understand the people wanting it. Regards, Lluís. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:37:06 -0400 David Slocombe sloco...@vex.net wrote: But autotools should come first as it both supports the above and goes at least a long way to helping all the other folks who aren't plugged into some Linux distribution's binary package system. Is autotools the only such tool the fedora committers support? Seems like a lot of things don't require them, and many of those that do require patching by hand to build anyway. Of the 23,054 package Makefiles in the FreeBSD ports tree, only 1732 use any of the autotools (most of those seem to be libtool), and of those, 1165 need further patching(*). mike Those are *very* rough numbers, based on checking for the USE_AUTOTOOLS variable in the Makefiles and whether or not the port has a files directory (which holds patches). Lots of things could throw those numbers off, but unless something really weird is going on, they should be the right order of magnitude. -- Mike Meyer m...@mired.org http://www.mired.org/ Independent Software developer/SCM consultant, email for more information. O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] TH1 - make 1d list from 2d list?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:37 AM, dieter roelants dieter...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:24:28 -0700
Higham, Paul phig...@sjm.com wrote:
but I suspect that TH1 has neither dictionaries nor the {*} operator.
How about
set oneDlist
foreach pair $twoDlist {lappend oneDlist [lindex $pair 0]}
No foreach and lappend available either...
Not that I am a fan of TCL, but I wonder how much effort it would be
to use a full TCL interpretor?
Actually, I know next to nothing about TCL, so for all I know, TH1's
relation to TCL could be entirely cosmetic, but otherwise have
completely different internals.
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil
Stephan Beal wrote: Another suggestion nobody has made yet: jam. It can be distributed in static-binary form directly with the source tree (i've seen this done in a couple projects, and i know it can build on some rather obscure systems). i can't personally speak for jam's usability - read about it but never used it myself. I use Jam in my cross-system project, but I don't like the default Jambase, and completely re-wrote it to suite my ideas of how a build system should work. I rather like Jam itself since it's quite flexible and works well on the systems I use if for, with very few system specific cases in the Jamfiles, but (not surprisingly) people who want to build my software complain about not using a standard system like AutoTools, even though such systems aren't suitable for MSWin/VC++ type environments. The bottom line is that it does make everyone equal - they all have to install/compile Jam first! (Jam is available on some Linux systems as a standard package.) [ My experience with CMake hasn't endeared it to me. AutoTools is pretty awful, and always seems to be breaking. QMake seems cleaner than most systems. I'm sticking with Jam for my code, as it's clean and I can now maintain it easily.] Graeme Gill. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil
All of these alternative build systems are a PITA on one system or another. If it requires jam, cmake or anything that requires installing prerequisites 9 times out of 10 I won't even try that software unless there is a binary install available somewhere or a pre-assembled Makefile. I thought that from an end user perspective all that is needed with autoconf is sh. The requirement is on the developer to run autoconf before making the tar. I thought autoconf itself is not needed on the platform where the build is being done, correct?? For fossil you could keep the files generated by autoconf (not the ./configure step but the initialization step) checked in. Then it is just ./configure make install on most systems. For anything weird (e.g. windows) provide a Makefile.win32 or similar. Alexanders suggestion of premake4 is the only one that piqued my interest. Distribute the source along with fossil and use autoconf to build it and then premake4 to build fossil ... just kidding ... although for some twisted reason that wacky idea actually appeals to me. On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Martin Gagnon eme...@gmail.com wrote: Le 2011-06-14 à 22:19, Graeme Gill grae...@argyllcms.com a écrit : Stephan Beal wrote: Another suggestion nobody has made yet: jam. It can be distributed in static-binary form directly with the source tree (i've seen this done in a couple projects, and i know it can build on some rather obscure systems). i can't personally speak for jam's usability - read about it but never used it myself. I use Jam in my cross-system project, but I don't like the default Jambase, and completely re-wrote it to suite my ideas of how a build system should work. I rather like Jam itself since it's quite flexible and works well on the systems I use if for, with very few system specific cases in the Jamfiles, but (not surprisingly) people who want to build my software complain about not using a standard system like AutoTools, even though such systems aren't suitable for MSWin/VC++ type environments. The bottom line is that it does make everyone equal - they all have to install/compile Jam first! (Jam is available on some Linux systems as a standard package.) [ My experience with CMake hasn't endeared it to me. AutoTools is pretty awful, and always seems to be breaking. QMake seems cleaner than most systems. I'm sticking with Jam for my code, as it's clean and I can now maintain it easily.] Graeme Gill. All that thread start when someone post about haiku that need different libs flags in order to link properly. If a OS like Haiku don't have this jam, all that is pretty pointless. And for myself which use QNX, I really don't want to think about how I'll make work jam on it. It was actually already compiling on QNX with the standard Makefile anyway. As others pointed it out before, I really think that to automaticaly generate this Makefile, if we really have to go that way, we should need something already on all system; like /bin/sh. So is the case of the configure script produced by this autowhatever, but one maintainers need the too have autowhatever installed to maintain the resulting configure script, which is not as bad as requiring extra tool on every system that build fossil. Is it an acceptable trade off knowing how much everybody love this autowhatever? -- Martin ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
