After my first post Alexandre ask to post a patch. From now I will have 2
weeks of vacation. So I will try to make it happen. As project kde did I
will use am2cmake ruby script for automatic translation and the fix things
by hand.
If someone else is interested let me know.
Massimo
Il giorno
Hi Malix
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:24:37AM +0200, Malix wrote:
After my first post Alexandre ask to post a patch. From now I will have 2
weeks of vacation. So I will try to make it happen. As project kde did I
will use am2cmake ruby script for automatic translation and the fix things
by
Hi Kevin
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 05:04:33PM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
One advantage of CMake you didn't list is how it can do builds to a
sub-directory of the source tree. I found this helpful when building a
standard version of Blender and an experimental version with some added
On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 13:42 -0400, Kevin Cozens wrote:
On 12-08-06 04:56 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Now my page ( http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/anti/autohell/ ) gives
many
valid reasons why CMake is superior and GNU Autotools
is inferior, and as a result concludes it is valid to
Hi Patrick,
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:30:29 -0700
Patrick Horgan phorg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/04/2012 02:43 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Hi Patrick,
...elision by patrick...
Well, calling GNU Autotools Autohell is not an ad-hominem attack.
However, assuming that since I called it Autohell
Von: Alexandre Prokoudine alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com
I'm glad that you're having tons of fun discussing deep philosophical
standpoints, but for the mere mortals... TL;DR: should I be adding We
like autotools and think you should apologize for calling them
autohell to our new FAQ?
Add
On 08/05/2012 10:56 PM, gg wrote:
... elision by patrick ...
Patrick, you refer to a pseudo encyclopaedia but fail to read the very
first line:
An ad hominem (Latin for to the man) short for argumentum ad
hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out
a negative
STOOP ITT
And don't you dare say But he started it!.
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Patrick Horgan phorg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/05/2012 10:56 PM, gg wrote:
... elision by patrick ...
Patrick, you refer to a pseudo encyclopaedia but fail to read the very
first line:
On 12-08-06 04:56 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Now my page ( http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/anti/autohell/ ) gives many
valid reasons why CMake is superior and GNU Autotools
is inferior, and as a result concludes it is valid to nickname Autotools
Autohell
as a derogatory name, just based on
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 22:23:27 -0700
From: phorg...@gmail.com
To: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] What about switching from Gtk+ to Qt
On 07/29/2012 05:17 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 02:51:44PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Do we need
On 07/29/2012 05:17 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 02:51:44PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Do we need to change to CMake? Nobody has given
reasons so far, just assumed that we'd like to switch to CMake. It
would substitute one hell for another.
Well, I have given many
: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:55:48 +0300
From: shlo...@shlomifish.org
To: parth...@gmail.com
CC: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] What about switching from Gtk+ to Qt
Hi Partha,
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:22:35 -0400
Partha Bagchi parth...@gmail.com wrote
On Monday, July 30, 2012, 9:06:53, Malix wrote:
Switching to new build system should not be linked to the fact that the
former does not work, but to the best that the new works.
Except that looking at CMake documentation, it makes cross-compiling
GIMP much more complicated that it's at the
On 07/29/12 02:11, Malix wrote:
I already know that this post will generate a lot of flames. Next step
of the project is the porting of the code to Gtk 3, why instead not
switching away from gtk and go with Qt? And also leave autohell and
switch to make?
You can think that I'm just kidding but
Hi all,
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 04:44:21 +0400
Alexandre Prokoudine alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Malix wrote:
I already know that this post will generate a lot of flames.
But you do it anyway?
Next step of the project is the porting of the code
Hi Shlomi
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 01:21:03PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
In any case, I would be willing to work on porting GIMP's build system to
CMake, as long as there is a general agreement from GIMP's developers that
CMake will be available in addition or instead of GNU Autotools (so I
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Mukund Sivaraman m...@banu.com wrote:
Hi Shlomi
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 01:21:03PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
In any case, I would be willing to work on porting GIMP's build system to
CMake, as long as there is a general agreement from GIMP's developers that
Hi Partha,
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:22:35 -0400
Partha Bagchi parth...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Mukund Sivaraman m...@banu.com wrote:
Hi Shlomi
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 01:21:03PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
In any case, I would be willing to work on porting GIMP's
Hi Mukund,
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:39:19 +0530
Mukund Sivaraman m...@banu.com wrote:
Hi Shlomi
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 01:21:03PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
In any case, I would be willing to work on porting GIMP's build system to
CMake, as long as there is a general agreement from GIMP's
On Sunday, July 29, 2012, 13:55:48, Shlomi Fish wrote:
CMake can generate GNU make-compatible makefiles just fine, so unless you
meant
GNU Automake, that's not the issue. CMake can also generate project files for
other IDEs and support some other build-systems, all from the same sources, so
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Jernej Simončič jer...@ena.si wrote:
On Sunday, July 29, 2012, 13:55:48, Shlomi Fish wrote:
CMake can generate GNU make-compatible makefiles just fine, so unless you
meant
GNU Automake, that's not the issue. CMake can also generate project files for
other
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Partha Bagchi wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Jernej Simončič jer...@ena.si wrote:
On Sunday, July 29, 2012, 13:55:48, Shlomi Fish wrote:
CMake can generate GNU make-compatible makefiles just fine, so unless you meant
GNU Automake, that's not the issue. CMake can
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Boudewijn Rempt b...@valdyas.org wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Partha Bagchi wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Jernej Simončič jer...@ena.si wrote:
On Sunday, July 29, 2012, 13:55:48, Shlomi Fish wrote:
CMake can generate GNU make-compatible makefiles
Autotools may be unpleasant to learn, but once it works, it works, and it
works well for GIMP. If you were starting a new project then you might have
grounds to think about picking an easier build tool, but why throw away all
the work already put into GIMP's use of autotools because autotools is
On 12-07-29 06:21 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
In any case, I would be willing to work on porting GIMP's build system to
CMake, as long as there is a general agreement from GIMP's developers that
CMake will be available in addition or instead of GNU Autotools (so I won't
work for naught).
My one
Ops my phone wrongly change this: And also leave autohell and switch to
cmake
Il giorno 29/lug/2012 02:11, Malix mal...@gmail.com ha scritto:
I already know that this post will generate a lot of flames. Next step of
the project is the porting of the code to Gtk 3, why instead not switching
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Malix wrote:
I already know that this post will generate a lot of flames.
But you do it anyway?
Next step of the project is the porting of the code to Gtk 3
It started over a year ago, it's just lower priority right now.
why instead not switching away from
27 matches
Mail list logo
