On 28.09.09 16:08:22, Brad King wrote:
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 25.09.09 16:07:21, Bill Hoffman wrote:
I am happy to announce that CMake 2.8.0 has entered the beta stage! You
can find the source and binaries here: http://www.cmake.org/files/v2.8/.
I am sure I am leaving something out,
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Andreas Pakulat ap...@gmx.de wrote:
On 28.09.09 16:08:22, Brad King wrote:
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 25.09.09 16:07:21, Bill Hoffman wrote:
I am happy to announce that CMake 2.8.0 has entered the beta stage!
You
can find the source and binaries here:
David Cole wrote:
Thanks for the info, I'll fix the project later. I believe however
that I
didn't see any warnings, which should now be posted if I understood
correctly? Or is that part of the OLD behaviour still working?
If you set the policty to OLD, you should just
On 29.09.09 09:26:30, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 28.09.09 16:08:22, Brad King wrote:
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 25.09.09 16:07:21, Bill Hoffman wrote:
I am happy to announce that CMake 2.8.0 has entered the beta stage! You
can find the source and binaries here:
On Tuesday 29 September 2009, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
Hi,
to ensure that example code showing how to use a library is up-to-date
(and/or the installed headers/libs are okay) I would like to have that code
automatically test-compiled directly after an installation of the
headers/lib
On 29.09.09 19:24:54, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Tuesday 29 September 2009, Bill Hoffman wrote:
David Cole wrote:
Thanks for the info, I'll fix the project later. I believe however
that I
didn't see any warnings, which should now be posted if I understood
On Tuesday 29 September 2009, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 29.09.09 19:24:54, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
...
Doesn't that imply that we will always need the 2.4.x behaviour for all
of KDE 4.x ?
I mean, if I set some property to NEW, which may change some behaviour,
the developer may have to
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Alexander Neundorf
a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net wrote:
I guess we will with it, because I don't really see a difference between
source compatibility for C++ files and for CMake files. In both cases, if
it's broken, the package will not compile.
Do we promise source
On Tuesday 29 September 2009, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Alexander Neundorf
a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net wrote:
I guess we will with it, because I don't really see a difference between
source compatibility for C++ files and for CMake files. In both cases, if
2009/9/29 Alexander Neundorf a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net:
On Tuesday 29 September 2009, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Alexander Neundorf
a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net wrote:
I guess we will with it, because I don't really see a difference between
source compatibility
On Tuesday 29 September 2009 16:05:38 Matt Williams wrote:
2009/9/29 Alexander Neundorf a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net:
On Tuesday 29 September 2009, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Alexander Neundorf
a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net wrote:
I guess we will with it, because
11 matches
Mail list logo