only real super viagdra called ciadlis is effective Annual Sale: ONLY $3 per dose
Check out our website with disscounts and get your fdree bonus pillls
http://drcute.net/sv/index.php?pid=eph0451
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there a reason to allow file names longer than 99 characters in a
> package? Clearly this is non-portable. Why not enforce a maximum
> file name length of 99 characters in Automake?
I experience the breakage when using Doxygen to generate a refer
>>> "Sergey" == Sergey Poznyakoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> Otherwise use `POSIXLY_CORRECT=1 tar'. (I'm assuming that
>> POSIXLY_CORRECT=1 will coerce older tar versions into
>> producing ustar format. Am I wrong, or is there another
>> way?)
Sergey> No, it will not. Previous
HelloDo you want to exchande your e-gold/other
e-currency to real $$$ ? This is new exchange service in internet!!!We
can transfer your money by Western Union, Bank Wire, etc!!!Click here (http://www.elibgroup.com) to register. You
can win$100.00 while register!!!Best regards, keep your money
> Use libtool with -module.
Specifically, in your Makefile.am, do something like:
dummy_la_LDFLAGS=-module
But what about this problem:
http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2004-02/msg00179.html
My problem here is that if I do:
dummy_la_LDFLAGS=-module
dummy_la_LIBADD = $(top_builddir)/sup
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
>
> By the way, the pax manpage from the Heirloom Toolchest
> (http://heirloom.berlios.de/man/pax.1.html) mentions that "due
> to implementation errors, file names longer than 99 characters
> can not considered to be generally portable" when taking a
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it's the only place where I've read this. Has anybody
> seen such implementation? I'm tempted to think we shouldn't
> care.
Agreed.
Regards,
Sergey
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On second though, shouldn't we try to use pax first? tar is no
> longer a POSIX requirement, right?
Right, but I'd say it's too early to relay on pax.
> Also do we really need to try `-o'?
No, we do not.
> Besides GNU tar, is there some tar i
>>> "adl" == Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>>> Forcing the ustar format might be a possibility (is it?), if
>>> that can be done portably (that probably involves a configure
>>> check).
Paul> Yes, I think this is t
>>> "Sergey" == Sergey Poznyakoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Sergey> Returning to the question which format should be chosen for
Sergey> distribution tarballs: I would recommend the 'ustar' format.
Sergey> It also has a limitation on the maximum length of stored pathnames,
Sergey> but
>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 1. The --format=posix options is a GNU Tar option, which means `make dist'
>> can no longer be run with other make implementations.
Paul> Presumably you meant "tar implementations"
Hello,
Actually I was planning to address this issue a bit later, since I
do not have a solution for automake yet. Anyway:
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roger> + $(AMTAR) chf - $(distdir) --format=posix | GZIP=$(GZIP_ENV) gzip -c
> >$(distdir).tar.gz
> [...]
>
> Sorry
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. The --format=posix options is a GNU Tar option, which means `make dist'
>can no longer be run with other make implementations.
Presumably you meant "tar implementations" and not "make
implementations"? But this is already the case, as the
13 matches
Mail list logo
