On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 2:17 AM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Daniele Maccari <[EMAIL PROTE
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Lucas C. Villa Real
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Lucas C. Villa Real
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I was looking at Cmake's body
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Lucas C. Villa Real
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was looking at Cmake's body in bin/Compile and it turns out that
> > cmake_variables serves to exactly the same purpose as
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Lucas C. Villa Real
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at Cmake's body in bin/Compile and it turns out that
> cmake_variables serves to exactly the same purpose as the environment
> array. Is there a reason to keep it? Are there recipes using that
Hi,
I was looking at Cmake's body in bin/Compile and it turns out that
cmake_variables serves to exactly the same purpose as the environment
array. Is there a reason to keep it? Are there recipes using that yet?
--
Lucas
powered by /dev/dsp
___
gobolin
On 12/05/2008, Daniele Maccari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jonas Karlsson wrote:
> > On 12/05/2008, Daniele Maccari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Homer wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'll let Hisham speak for himself, but I think the general point he's
> >> > making (and the one that'
Jonas Karlsson wrote:
> On 12/05/2008, Daniele Maccari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Michael Homer wrote:
>> >
>> > I'll let Hisham speak for himself, but I think the general point he's
>> > making (and the one that's been discussed before) is that in general,
>> > running something in bet
On 12/05/2008, Daniele Maccari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Homer wrote:
> >
> > I'll let Hisham speak for himself, but I think the general point he's
> > making (and the one that's been discussed before) is that in general,
> > running something in between configure and make is a hack
Michael Homer wrote:
>
> I'll let Hisham speak for himself, but I think the general point he's
> making (and the one that's been discussed before) is that in general,
> running something in between configure and make is a hack to fix
> something that's been misconfigured (e.g., patching a makefile
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Daniele Maccari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Homer wrote:
> > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Daniel
Michael Homer wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Daniele Maccari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > > 2008/5/11 Michael Homer <[EMAIL
11 matches
Mail list logo
