2008-02-09 10:06 UTC+0100 Marek Paliwoda (mpaliwoda at interia pl)
* harbour/contrib/hbtpathy/tplinux.c
* harbour/contrib/hbtpathy/tpos2.c
* harbour/contrib/hbtpathy/tpwin32.c
* Fixed guarding file content with proper OS constant
(HB_OS_UNIX, HB_OS_WIN_32, HB_OS_OS2)
--
Hi Marek,
Truely speaking the whole libnames problem is a little bit unclear
to me.
I don't want to jump in, or take a one side in this disputation, but
certainly if the decision was to rename the libnames, it would be
better
to do it now than later. 1.0 means something (at least to me).
Przemek:
2008-02-08 15:58 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)
* harbour/config/os2/global.cf
! use FOR command to delete group of files
With these changes, with old make.exe (3.76.1):
- make_gnu.cmd: work entirely
- make_gnu.cmd install: work entirely
- make_gnu.cmd
Hi Viktor,
[...]
One drawback which was mentioned on the list, is that we
have a different license for the compiler lib, the RTL
libs and pbly also PCRE.
O s... ;-), I completly forgot about. But it means that
we have problem with .dll (.so) builds also, haven't we ?
We also have some
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008, David Arturo Macias Corona wrote:
With these changes, with old make.exe (3.76.1):
- make_gnu.cmd: work entirely
- make_gnu.cmd install: work entirely
- make_gnu.cmd clean: fail
[E:\harbour802]make -r clean 1make_gnu.log
make:
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008, Lorenzo Fiorini wrote:
Why should we not finish Harbour at this time?
Because the two main developers don't agree about latest changes.
Not exactly. I agree that library names can be source of some
name conflict and I like the idea to resolve the problem.
I only do not
2008-02-09 12:50 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)
* harbour/config/w32/global.cf
* removed ' quoting from commands - *sh shells removed them but without
such shell they are passed to windows command interpreter and not
all version removed them
best regards
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008, Szakáts Viktor wrote:
[...]
With all due respect if someone creating an official
binary release is not able to do this, we may have some
other problems too.
Viktor, the most important is that it will be necessary to make
some modifications before compilation. I
On Feb 9, 2008 12:31 PM, Przemyslaw Czerpak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not exactly again. I only plan to reduce my activity in this
project and concentrate on some other things - believe me
that Harbour is not my whole life :-).
I'm very happy to read this.
Since time is never enough by
Hi Lorenzo,
Do you really find a change like this between beta3 and RC necessary
and needed?
It could certainly help in the future that such concerns
would be expressed before deciding about these changes,
yet, all I got was silence (from you) and a few approvals.
Silence used to be
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008, Szakáts Viktor wrote:
I'll look into this header package problem tomorrow.
One thing that would help a lot here, is to have a
separate include dir inside the Harbour source tree,
which is empty in the repository, and where these
headers could be spilled from the 3rd party
Thanks Przemek.
I'll look into this header package problem tomorrow.
One thing that would help a lot here, is to have a
separate include dir inside the Harbour source tree,
which is empty in the repository, and where these
headers could be spilled from the 3rd party header
zip file.
Such a
On Feb 9, 2008 9:43 PM, Szakáts Viktor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It could certainly help in the future that such concerns
would be expressed before deciding about these changes,
yet, all I got was silence (from you) and a few approvals.
At that time I thought that all the core developers
2008-02-09 22:42 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)
* harbour/harbour.spec
* harbour/harbour-ce-spec
* harbour/harbour-w32-spec
* harbour/make_rpm.sh
* harbour/make_rpmce.sh
* harbour/make_rpmw32.sh
* updated for recent changes in library names
* added '--with
have make_os2.cmd which is necessary for OS2 users - now they
are using make_gnu.cmd from older Harbour versions or from
xHarbour.
Yes, unfortunately it means to update every such file
in one more copy, which work will fall back to us, or
they won't really be updated ever.
This is true for
I think we should rename the libs as they were and revert HB_GTI to
GTI_.
1.0 RC should be usable by a beta3 user without any modification.
To me, this is just resistance to change for the matter of past
convenience.
It's not a very compelling argument.
Like all changes, soon this one
Hi Przemek,
So since it's unlike we'll have a 1.1 I think we should at least
leave
the lib names as they have been in the last 8 years and do a favor to
poor users.
It's also important argument though in fact there is a problem that
we do not have compiler and linker wrapper which can
Hello Everybody
Has anybody been able to use xHarbour's win32ole.prg in Harbour ?
I am in a process of porting an huge application which is heavily based on
Active-X's. The application takes advantage of FreeWin (SourceForge) library
and hosts many objects. I am struck at hb_oleItemToVariant()
18 matches
Mail list logo
