Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 7, 2001, Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically, I think we need something like a AC_PROG_GCC_USES_MWIN32.
I have mixed feelings about having this macro in autoconf. On one
hand, it would be kind of promoting the use of proprietary
On Mar 8, 2001, "Charles S. Wilson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, by absorbing AC_PROG_GCC_USES_MWIN32, are you helping the GPL half,
or the proprietary half?
By refusing to absorb it, are you hurting the proprietary half, or the
GPL half?
Both, of course.
Which is more important?
- Original Message -
From: "Alexandre Oliva" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Charles S. Wilson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Christopher Faylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: Detecting the need for -mwin32 in newer cygwin
On Mar 8, 2001, "Robert Collins" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having set the stage above, you can see that squid uses autoconf to
detect what features are available, before trying to compile them in,
and that it is very reasonable for the developers to add fine tuned
support for various core
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 8, 2001, "Charles S. Wilson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, by absorbing AC_PROG_GCC_USES_MWIN32, are you helping the GPL half,
or the proprietary half?
By refusing to absorb it, are you hurting the proprietary half, or the
GPL half?
Both, of
Mike Castle wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 05:51:45PM +0100, Assar Westerlund wrote:
Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NT. (NT will happily rename() across disks, hardly an atomic operation).
What rename() is that? It's not the one in their posix library I
assume? Is there a
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm using AM_CONFIG_HEADER to insert a couple of configure-time
defines into headers which will be installed. This works well, except
that I want to have one literal #undef pass through, rather than be
commented out like normally happens.
Perhaps a
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 8, 2001, "Charles S. Wilson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, by absorbing AC_PROG_GCC_USES_MWIN32, are you helping the GPL half,
or the proprietary half?
By refusing to absorb it, are you hurting the proprietary half, or the
GPL half?
Both, of
Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is typically what should happen in config.h. config.h is
s/should/should not/
strictly equivalent to a series of -D flags passed to the compiler.
Anything else, such as including a header, belongs to system.h.
Really, unless I misunderstood
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 11:49:07PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 7, 2001, Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically, I think we need something like a AC_PROG_GCC_USES_MWIN32.
I have mixed feelings about having this macro in autoconf. On one
hand, it would be kind of
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:49:33PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
cygwin, win32
cygwin, nowin32
no cygwin (aka mingw32), win32
no cygwin, nowin32
-mno-cygwin and -mnowin32 is not an allowed combination.
Please, let's not complicate this. The only thing required is a check
for -mwin32.
I'm not
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 03:47:44AM -0500, Charles S. Wilson wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 7, 2001, Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically, I think we need something like a AC_PROG_GCC_USES_MWIN32.
I have mixed feelings about having this macro in autoconf. On one
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 09:23:46AM -0500, Earnie Boyd wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 8, 2001, "Charles S. Wilson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, by absorbing AC_PROG_GCC_USES_MWIN32, are you helping the GPL half,
or the proprietary half?
By refusing to absorb it, are you hurting
On Mar 8, 2001, Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another problem is the package maintainers (if they exist) will be slow
to adapt to the new option and we'll be answering this question a lot.
I'd rather just say "Add AC_PROG_GCC_USES_MWIN32" to your script than
trying to tell
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 03:15:06PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 8, 2001, Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another problem is the package maintainers (if they exist) will be slow
to adapt to the new option and we'll be answering this question a lot.
I'd rather just say "Add
Hi, this came up in our project. Why, if a package is required to ship
install-sh anyway, do we look for a system install program when this might
just cause weird problems? (And you know that many system's 'install'
programs are just full of weird problems.) Compare this to the case of
- Original Message -
From: "Alexandre Oliva" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Robert Collins" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Charles S. Wilson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Christopher Faylor"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Detecting the
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Faylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:49:33PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
cygwin, win32
cygwin, nowin32
no cygwin (aka mingw32), win32
no cygwin, nowin32
-mno-cygwin and -mnowin32 is not an allowed combination.
Good - that
18 matches
Mail list logo
