"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yuck. I don't seem to have those interactions with vc5.0/SDK 2000.
> But you are right, we just slowed the build by bypassing these
> inclusions.
>
> We can selectively toggle off -parts- of the GDI without turning it off
> entirely. Since I
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 2:15 PM
>
> Hey, all. This fix also fixed a build problem I was having in Win98,
> but I'm worried that the fix might be skirting a bigger issue. Code
> exists in apr_private.h that "turns off" the use of Windows' GDI
> library (by #define'
Hey, all. This fix also fixed a build problem I was having in Win98,
but I'm worried that the fix might be skirting a bigger issue. Code
exists in apr_private.h that "turns off" the use of Windows' GDI
library (by #define'ing NOGDI) among other things. The recent
inclusion of , on Win98 platform
On Monday, January 29, 2001, at 06:13 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
Really. apr_portable.h is an awful name. The functions are not portable at
all since you must feed them OS-specific parameters.
The name should be changed. I'd say +1 before beta, +0 after beta.
+1
I found this similarly confusing.
apr_non
Euh... nope.
apr.h.save and apr_private.h.save are *not* supposed to be saved. Around
line 940 of apr/configure.in, they are removed. I don't know why they aren't
always removed, though.
And apu_private* no longer exists. Your working copy is out of sync. That
change should also be reverted.
Che
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: CVS update: subversion/subversion/client diff.c
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 28 Jan 2001 16:02:08 -
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
User: brane
Date: 01/01/28 08:02:08
Modified:subversion/client dif
> > I am willing to throw more time at fixing this stuff, but I need
> > to understand how we got to this point. I went back and read
> > the mail archives surrounding the decision to drop automake
> > and go with this stuff, but my guess is that the existing scripts
> > simply weren't meant to b
> trawick 01/01/29 08:16:10
>
> Modified:include apr_user.h
> Log:
> use a form of preprocessing which buildexports.awk can handle;
> exports.c now compiles on Unix, as it no longer tries to reference
> the macros apr_compare_users() or apr_compare_groups()
>
> -#ifdef WIN3
[Moved from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Ben Laurie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 8:32 AM
>
> "William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
> >
> > > From: Ben Laurie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 3:53 AM
> > >
> > > Greg Stein wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Th
"Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, the code
> will work fine regardless of the warning, so it probably isn't
> worth the effort to support no warnings on anything but the latest
> gcc.
you mean the latest glibc
Previously, we
"Roy T. Fielding" wrote:
> I am willing to throw more time at fixing this stuff, but I need
> to understand how we got to this point. I went back and read
> the mail archives surrounding the decision to drop automake
> and go with this stuff, but my guess is that the existing scripts
> simply were
I am getting really frustrated by the build system (again).
I don't understand why it is so complicated, and I'm afraid that
if I try to simplify it the whole thing will fall apart.
This isn't because of autoconf -- I've seen far more complex
packages use autoconf without any of these complications
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 02:42:06AM -, David Reid wrote:
>...
> > * add a version number to apr_initialize() as an extra failsafe
> against
> > (APR) library version skew.
> > MsgID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Status: Greg +1 (volunteers), Jeff +1, Ryan +1, Tony -0(?)
>
> I s
--- Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now that we're actually using this function, I figured it was time to dig in
> and spend the time with this patch. :-)
> *) what happens when you find a bucket with e->length == -1 ? AFAICT, the
>function doesn't handle it. I'm thinking a check at th
> > That's a real PITA. How exactly are we supposed to handle platforms
> > this? Linux is getting warnings right now, which I dislike.
>
> I am developing on Linux (RedHat 7) and was getting warnings with
> the old code. I don't know why you are getting warnings from the
> explicit cast. Are
> Sure it can support multiple flags. If I do:
>
> ./configure --with-optim="-O2 -O2"
>
> It will work...
Hmmm... it wasn't working for me -- something was stripping the
double-quotes off the comand-line arguments, such that the
command-line could not be reconstructed faithfully, and thus
config
> That's a real PITA. How exactly are we supposed to handle platforms
> this? Linux is getting warnings right now, which I dislike.
I am developing on Linux (RedHat 7) and was getting warnings with
the old code. I don't know why you are getting warnings from the
explicit cast. Are you using an
17 matches
Mail list logo
