> Are there any features in waf 2.x that you were looking forward to? Or do
> you just want us to avoid getting too far behind?
Just trying to avoid getting too far behind.
If nothing else, I'd like their online documentation to correspond to the
version I'm trying to debug.
-
I
Matthew Selsky :
> waf 2.x dropped support for 'type_name' and 'field_name' as arguments to
> check_cc(). So we'll need to work-around that and any other
> incompatibilities. I'll work on this.
Tinkering with the existing build system will have been redundant if
we port to Go, and 1.9 is
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 06:44:59AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond via devel wrote:
> Hal Murray via devel :
> > It's up to version 2.0.14, Dev 2018, about a year since the version we are
> > using.
We're using a version from 6 months ago
(https://gitlab.com/ita1024/waf-old/commits/waf-1.9)
> At some
Hal Murray via devel :
> It's up to version 2.0.14, Dev 2018, about a year since the version we are
> using.
At some point we'll have to, but there's a glitch in the way. Our present
waf build does something magic that doesn't work past 1.9 - I've fogotten
the details.
--
It's up to version 2.0.14, Dev 2018, about a year since the version we are
using.
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
