On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Jason Linhart wrote:
This post gives me the feeling that 'make install' should do something.
In my mind it should be something really simple, like just 'echo'ing the
response above to the console. No need for 'make install', but no need to
ignore people who think
Stephen Turner wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Jason Linhart wrote:
This post gives me the feeling that 'make install' should do something.
In my mind it should be something really simple, like just 'echo'ing the
response above to the console. No need for 'make install', but no need to
Wallace Nicoll wrote:
Stephen Turner wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Jason Linhart wrote:
This post gives me the feeling that 'make install' should do something.
In my mind it should be something really simple, like just 'echo'ing the
response above to the console. No need for 'make
Hello,
Anyone had problems before compiling Analog on a SCO box?
I have used the right switch for SCO, but ...
My gcc seems to be on strike (cannot find some of his own *.h).
Thanks,
Adrian
This is the analog-help mailing
Having a bit of trouble getting analog to run on NT and IIS. I receive
the following error when I try to produce a record through the web form.
\analog\analog.exe: Warning F: Failed to open configuration file
analog.cfg: ignoring it (For help on all errors and warnings, see
docs/errors.html)
Jeremy Wadsack wrote:
Stephen Turner wrote:
I'm starting to agree. Though I'm very puzzled why everyone has
suddenly
started wanting "make install" after four years. :)
Are we just using more stuff off the net, and things like "make install" have
become a sort of de facto
