Without this, is the windows build broken, or does it just have
useless files hanging around in the windows distribution?
Justin
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Alan Conway acon...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/18/2013 09:35 AM, Justin Ross wrote:
Hey, Alan. It looks like this one was garbled.
On 04/18/2013 02:32 PM, Justin Ross wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Chuck Rolke cro...@redhat.com wrote:
I think we ought to go ahead with the inclusion based on, as Steve says, our
push to cmake.
I'm afraid I disagree. That was our goal, but we missed. The absence
of the uninstall
On 04/18/2013 09:35 AM, Justin Ross wrote:
Hey, Alan. It looks like this one was garbled. Were there other
things you meant to request?
Wow, that was garbled! I think this is the only one worth considering:
commit 25eaa7e072a1f4bdfc592ac3c4ca57e265a04d40
Author: Alan Conway
Hey, Alan. It looks like this one was garbled. Were there other
things you meant to request?
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Alan Conway acon...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/11/2013 09:45 AM, Chuck Rolke wrote:
I think it's across the board but I tried only on Windows. It's only an
issue in
I have a patch in QPID-4729 that really ought to go into 0.22 since without it
cmake fails.
That said, I'm supplying the patch without actually doing a source tarball
construction, a subsequent cmake build that produces the unistalll, an install,
and finally an uninstall that proves it works.
Steve, do you plan to use the uninstall facility? That went in after
Beta, and subsequently had a couple problems. I'm inclined to instead
revert the uninstall change, which should also return the cmake build
to working.
Justin
... but since we are encouraging users to use the cmake build mechanism, the
uninstall feature may be important to allow more people to try cmake.
-Original Message-
From: Steve Huston
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 5:14 PM
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: RE: Request for inclusion
