Re: [fossil-users] Linux binary downloads

CM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> Envoyé le : Mardi 21 février 2017 9h58 Objet : Re: [fossil-users] Linux binary downloads 2017-02-20 16:42 GMT+01:00 Richard Hipp: > On 2/20/17, sky5w...@gmail.com <sky5w...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Any chance to get

Re: [fossil-users] Linux binary downloads

Thanks, I'll give it a try. :) On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > 2017-02-20 16:42 GMT+01:00 Richard Hipp: > > On 2/20/17, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Any chance to get the Windows binary as x64 also? > > You can find my win64

Re: [fossil-users] Linux binary downloads

2017-02-20 16:42 GMT+01:00 Richard Hipp: > On 2/20/17, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: >> Any chance to get the Windows binary as x64 also? You can find my win64 build here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/cyqlite/files/fossil/ It is marked 1.37.1, because it is built with

Re: [fossil-users] Linux binary downloads

> Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Linux binary downloads > On 2/20/17, Emil Totev <em...@tot-consult.com> wrote: >> Hi >> >> There are still inconsistencies in the binary downloads for linux at >> fossil's web site. >> >> File fossil-linux-x8

Re: [fossil-users] Linux binary downloads

Thus said Richard Hipp on Mon, 20 Feb 2017 07:40:43 -0500: > I suspect that the Mac and OpenBSD builds are 64-bits too. I suppose > we could produce 32-bit binaries, but I worry that they would be > largely untested, since I use 64-bit machines almost exclusively, as I > suspect most of

Re: [fossil-users] Linux binary downloads

Ah, I see it is somewhat quirky: https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/Compilation_and_Installation#W64 Thanks for explaining the Windows x64 gap. On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 2/20/17, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: > > Any chance to

Re: [fossil-users] Linux binary downloads

On 2/20/17, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: > Any chance to get the Windows binary as x64 also? The problem with that (for me at least) is that it is difficult to compile the OpenSSL library using MSVC. OpenSSL really wants to be compiled with MinGW. And I only have a 32-bit

Re: [fossil-users] Linux binary downloads

Any chance to get the Windows binary as x64 also? Thanks for Fossil. On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Roy Keene wrote: > I'd vote for x86_64 or amd64 (or even EM64T), but not "x64" (which is > gibberish). > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2017, Richard Hipp wrote: > > On 2/20/17, Emil

Re: [fossil-users] Linux binary downloads

I'd vote for x86_64 or amd64 (or even EM64T), but not "x64" (which is gibberish). On Mon, 20 Feb 2017, Richard Hipp wrote: On 2/20/17, Emil Totev wrote: Hi There are still inconsistencies in the binary downloads for linux at fossil's web site. File

Re: [fossil-users] Linux binary downloads

On 2/20/17, Emil Totev wrote: > Hi > > There are still inconsistencies in the binary downloads for linux at > fossil's web site. > > File fossil-linux-x86-1.37.tar.gz contains a x64 (64-bit) executable. > There seems to be no 32-bit linux executable download. > > Could

[fossil-users] Linux binary downloads

Hi There are still inconsistencies in the binary downloads for linux at fossil's web site. File fossil-linux-x86-1.37.tar.gz contains a x64 (64-bit) executable. There seems to be no 32-bit linux executable download. Could someone please fix that for this and future builds? Regards Emil

Re: [fossil-users] Linux binary downloads

On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 05:13:56PM +0200, Emil Totev wrote: > Furthermore, even the old 1.35 binary does not completely work on > CentOS 7 - 'fossil clone' returns "bad hostname lookup" for otherwise > perfectly resolvable and pingable hosts. This part is moderately easy to explain. "Statically"

[fossil-users] Linux binary downloads

Hi There was a thread some time ago about the 1.36 linux binary download, but probably because it got hijacked by a troll, there hasn't been any reaction. Unlike previous releases which were ZIP files, the linux download is now a tar.gz, and it contains a dynamically linked 64bit executable