Hey,
Here is a patch to make libtool support the cegcc compiler. The patch is
made wrt the latest cvs.
Thank you for the patch. Please bootstrap Libtool 2.2.2 with this
patch, build it for this system (cross-compile if you have to), and
send the output of
make -k check
I can't, as there
* Vincent Torri wrote on Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 08:39:02AM CEST:
Here is a patch to make libtool support the cegcc compiler. The patch is
made wrt the latest cvs.
Thank you for the patch. Please bootstrap Libtool 2.2.2 with this
patch, build it for this system (cross-compile if you have to),
Hi,
* Makefile.am: Expect mkstamp to return only rev date.
* libltdl/config/mkstamp: return a revision and date based on the number
of lines in the input and the topmost date.
Ok?
Peter
--
Peter O'Gorman
http://pogma.com
* Makefile.am: Expect mkstamp to return only rev date.
*
Hi Peter,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 05:43:36AM CEST:
* Makefile.am: Expect mkstamp to return only rev date.
* libltdl/config/mkstamp: return a revision and date based on the
number of lines in the input and the topmost date.
Hmm, I was almost saying OK, except the last
OK? (No ChangeLog entry.)
Cheers,
Ralf
Ignore generated files.
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
new file mode 100644
index 000..252219d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+*.aux
+*.cp
+*.cps
+*.dvi
+*.fn
+*.ky
+*.la
+*.lo
+*.log
+*.o
+*.pg
+*.toc
+*.tp
+*.vr
++build
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 07:40:54AM CEST:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
But how do you ensure @MACRO_SERIAL@ increases after ChangeLog rotation?
Ha! Having never done a ChangeLog rotation or paid it much attention, I
figured that the new ChangeLog would have a commit
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Roland Mainz wrote on Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 04:59:15PM CEST:
Ok... but dolt may been to be adopted to other compilers (like Sun
Workshop/Forte/Studio, icc etc.) and then it will be a bit more than the
10 lines (and adopting it for other POSIX-like shells may be nice,
[ since my mails are being dropped for the other lists anyway, I might
as well drop the xorg and gnome-devtools lists ]
* Roland Mainz wrote on Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 03:26:11PM CEST:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
[...] we are currently working on improving things a bit more,
targeting improvements
* Mike Frysinger wrote on Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 01:41:32AM CEST:
On Sunday 13 April 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
So don't do this, please. Supply --tag=CC if your compiler name doesn't
match.
i doubt people will care at this point, but ive done a bit of work in Gentoo
to make the tag
On Monday 14 April 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Mike Frysinger wrote on Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 01:41:32AM CEST:
On Sunday 13 April 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
So don't do this, please. Supply --tag=CC if your compiler name
doesn't match.
i doubt people will care at this point, but
Since it has been claimed that libtool causes a lot of build overhead,
I have been doing a *lot* of testing here with latest development
libtool. We already know that libtool 1.5.X is very slow so it is not
worth worrying about that and it is more worthwhile to get projects
migrated to
Attila Kinali wrote:
If you care about sane tools, why do you use auto* and libtool
in the first place?
Because converting X.Org's approximately 300 packages to anything
else would be even more painful? (And believe me, I curse libtool
regularly, and have had to find more ways to undo it's
12 matches
Mail list logo
