On 15 June 2011 07:55, Matt Welland estifo...@gmail.com wrote:
All of these alternative build systems are a PITA on one system or another.
If it requires jam, cmake or anything that requires installing prerequisites
9 times out of 10 I won't even try that software unless there is a binary
On 09:59 PM, Matt Welland wrote:
For fossil you could keep the files generated by autoconf (not the
./configure step but the initialization step) checked in. Then it is
just ./configure make install on most systems. For anything weird
(e.g. windows) provide a Makefile.win32 or similar.
On 15 June 2011 09:47, Twylite twyl...@crypt.co.za wrote:
On 09:59 PM, Matt Welland wrote:
For fossil you could keep the files generated by autoconf (not the
./configure step but the initialization step) checked in. Then it is
just ./configure make install on most systems. For anything weird
On 15 June 2011 08:37, Alexander Vladimirov id...@idkfa.org.ru wrote:
how abouth this: http://buildconf.brlcad.org
A script like that is standard part of many autotoolized projects. In
fact, most people can't build an autotoolized project (other than
release tarballs with pre-generated configure
Hello Graeme,
On 2011-06-15 11:04, Graeme Gill wrote:
Michal Suchanek wrote:
Autotools can be installed and operated on Windows like most other
build configuration systems.
I'm not sure that's possible without installing a UNIX like shell
and set of tools. This is rather foreign for a
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:03:03AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
So, I'm asking for volunteers for people with better autoconf-foo than me,
to put together an autoconf/automake setup for Fossil. If you are good with
autoconf/automake, please consider contributing your expertise to the
project.
On 15 Jun 2011, at 16:28, Andres Perera andre...@zoho.com wrote:
i (now) prefer autotools because i spent some time getting
comfortable with m4
Yes, I think failure to understand m4, or failure to realise that it
needs to be understood, is one reason why people end up disliking
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:55:18 -0700
Matt Welland estifo...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought that from an end user perspective all that is needed with autoconf
is sh.
Not quite true. The problem is that, while every system has a /bin/sh,
different systems use different shells for that: most (but not
Le 2011-06-15 à 19:07, Mike Meyer m...@mired.org a écrit :
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:55:18 -0700
Matt Welland estifo...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought that from an end user perspective all that is needed with autoconf
is sh.
Not quite true. The problem is that, while every system has a /bin/sh,
9 matches
Mail list logo
