On 08/09/12 18:16, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
---
Adressing some concerns now..
- It has been pointed out that the patch does not contain any "autoconf
#idefs" ..well that is a sure sign you misread the code and the patch,
there are no new ifdefs for particular features because I have reuse
> Autotools question: is it possible to provide the equivalent of the
> BUILDDIR variable which provides an alternative location for .o files
> and binaries, so they're not mixed with the source files. that makes
> building different architectures in the same NFS-mounted source tree
> easy, and is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/09/12 05:42 AM, Simon Kelley wrote:
>
> Exactly how much effort itis I don't know, since I don't maintain
> most of those, (I don't actually know of the existence of most of
> them, probably.)
>
Modifying the Gentoo ebuild for autotools woul
On 11/09/12 16:53, Dan Williams wrote:
> Fedora does some sed magic to the makefile and to config.h to change
> some install paths and turn on the D-Bus interface. And while the main
> makefile apparently handles RPM_OPT_FLAGS for you (which is somewhat
> odd, and could be removed if using autoto
Am 11.09.2012 08:27, schrieb microcai:
> 2012/9/10 Simon Kelley :
>> On 09/09/12 06:57, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
>>> El dom 09 sep 2012 02:03:11 CLST, Shantanu Gadgil escribió:
If this is done, won't the autotools chain will be a prerequisite for
dnsmasq to be built.
Maybe OK f
On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 14:27 +0800, microcai wrote:
> 2012/9/10 Simon Kelley :
> > On 09/09/12 06:57, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
> >> El dom 09 sep 2012 02:03:11 CLST, Shantanu Gadgil escribió:
> >>> If this is done, won't the autotools chain will be a prerequisite for
> >>> dnsmasq to be built.
> >>
- Mail original -
> De: "microcai"
> À: "Simon Kelley" ,
> Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> Envoyé: Mardi 11 Septembre 2012 08:27:35
> Objet: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH] Add support for autotools
>
...
>
> advanages over plain M
--- On Tue, 9/11/12, microcai wrote:
> From: microcai
> Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH] Add support for autotools
> To: "Simon Kelley" ,
> Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> Date: Tuesday, September 11, 2012, 11:57 AM
> 2012/9/10 Simon Kelley :
>
2012/9/10 Simon Kelley :
> On 09/09/12 06:57, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
>> El dom 09 sep 2012 02:03:11 CLST, Shantanu Gadgil escribió:
>>> If this is done, won't the autotools chain will be a prerequisite for
>>> dnsmasq to be built.
>>>
>>> Maybe OK for Linux OSes ... not necessary for other platf
Am 10.09.2012 04:05, schrieb Cristian Rodríguez:
> El 09/09/12 22:10, richardvo...@gmail.com escribió:
>> Completely aside from arguments over the merits of autotools, this
>> patch is not production-ready.
>>
>> It makes unrelated changes. Removal of the copyright notice is
>> certainly not neces
Am 09.09.2012 18:42, schrieb Jan Seiffert:
> Shantanu Gadgil schrieb:
>> I would respectfully ask you to re-evaluate the "what most people
>> use" statement. The simplicity of DNSMasq is what makes it so
>> popular.
>>
>
> I would say yes to the simplicity.
> But i would not search it in the build
Am 08.09.2012 23:16, schrieb Cristian Rodríguez:
> ---
> Makefile | 134
> -
> Makefile.am | 16 +++
> configure.ac | 113
> src/bpf.c |4 ++
> src/cache.c
Am 10.09.2012 11:27, schrieb Simon Kelley:
> On 09/09/12 06:57, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
>> El dom 09 sep 2012 02:03:11 CLST, Shantanu Gadgil escribió:
>>> If this is done, won't the autotools chain will be a prerequisite for
>>> dnsmasq to be built.
>>>
>>> Maybe OK for Linux OSes ... not necessa
On 09/09/12 06:57, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
> El dom 09 sep 2012 02:03:11 CLST, Shantanu Gadgil escribió:
>> If this is done, won't the autotools chain will be a prerequisite for
>> dnsmasq to be built.
>>
>> Maybe OK for Linux OSes ... not necessary for other platforms/OSes
>> (think Solaris, AIX
El 09/09/12 22:10, richardvo...@gmail.com escribió:
> Completely aside from arguments over the merits of autotools, this
> patch is not production-ready.
>
> It makes unrelated changes. Removal of the copyright notice is
> certainly not necessary for use of autotools.
Where did I removed copyrig
Completely aside from arguments over the merits of autotools, this
patch is not production-ready.
It makes unrelated changes. Removal of the copyright notice is
certainly not necessary for use of autotools.
It breaks the documentation, which will no longer accurately describe
the steps needed fo
Shantanu Gadgil schrieb:
> I would respectfully ask you to re-evaluate the "what most people
> use" statement. The simplicity of DNSMasq is what makes it so
> popular.
>
I would say yes to the simplicity.
But i would not search it in the build.
I have been there with a project of mine.
Yes, a Ma
On Sun, 9/9/12, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
> From: Cristian Rodríguez
> Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH] Add support for autotools
> To: dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> Cc: "dnsmasq-list"
> Date: Sunday, September 9, 2012, 11:27 AM
> El dom 09 sep 2012 0
El dom 09 sep 2012 02:03:11 CLST, Shantanu Gadgil escribió:
If this is done, won't the autotools chain will be a prerequisite for dnsmasq
to be built.
Maybe OK for Linux OSes ... not necessary for other platforms/OSes (think
Solaris, AIX, and even more obscure, etc).
Why the overhead?!?
I rea
d and not at all in
favour of this!
Regards,
Shantanu
--- On Sun, 9/9/12, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
> From: Cristian Rodríguez
> Subject: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH] Add support for autotools
> To: dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> Cc: "Cristian Rodríguez"
> D
---
Makefile | 134 -
Makefile.am | 16 +++
configure.ac | 113
src/bpf.c |4 ++
src/cache.c |4 ++
src/config.h |2 +-
src/conntrack.c |
21 matches
Mail list logo
