Hi David,
> I read xhb-diff.txt and checked it
> About "over 10 times":
> I have seen before your info about "locking schemes" and so on, but in that
> cases was not relevant because does not exist a direct need and we usually do
> not go deep in those messages if we are not involved
> For example, nobody have response for my recent messages about hbcurl,
> hbcairo, hbqt because are considered as irrelevant in this moment
I did notice it and thanks for these tests, but I'd suggest
to patch (or send patches for) existing .hbc files, after you
tested them with hbmk2 successfully using OS/2 specific 3rd
party lib names. It's rather inefficient if I edit them without
testing and we iterate it endlessly. Plus for me it's impossible
to decide which one of the possible true OS/2 lib name setups
should be put into SVN .hbc files. Ideally the default here
should be what _most_ OS/2 users would expect.
You should add:
{os2}libs=...
Plus you should exclude existing libs= lines with
{!os2} if they are not currently protected.
> Surprisely, except for source code, there are not reference of
> DB_DBFLOCK_VFP, "locking scheme" in doc files and even changelog file
>
> My mail file for Harbour messages reached 105 Mb file size and no one editor
> in OS/2 can open it ( EPM, E, TEDIT, JEdit ) :-)
> So I used many hours to split file in many files until it can open under 50
> Mb:
> harbour0 21 Mb, 2006 to 2007
> harbour08 26 Mb, 2008
> harbour09a 31 Mb, 2009 first six months
> harbour 27 Mb, 2009 rest six months
(if it's a text file you can use 'grep')
Brgds,
Viktor
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB)
[email protected]
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
