On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:03:51AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 08/29/2016 08:12 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Le 26/08/2016 à 20:08, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
> >> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 06:37:31PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >>>
> >>> When everything is sorted out, can you
On 08/29/2016 08:12 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 26/08/2016 à 20:08, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
>> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 06:37:31PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>>
>>> When everything is sorted out, can you do the backport to 2.2.2? I
>>> think you
>>> are the one who knows best
Le 26/08/2016 à 20:08, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 06:37:31PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
When everything is sorted out, can you do the backport to 2.2.2? I think you
are the one who knows best what commits should be cherry-picked.
This would be the attached
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 06:37:31PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> When everything is sorted out, can you do the backport to 2.2.2? I think you
> are the one who knows best what commits should be cherry-picked.
This would be the attached patch.
--
Enrico
If available, use qtchooser to
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 11:04:40PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 17/07/2016 22:53, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
> > > * what is the reason why you search for tools without path (AC_CHECK_PROG)
> > > in some cases? I did think it was cleaner at some time, but now I know
> > > better :)
>
Le 17/07/2016 22:53, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
* what is the reason why you search for tools without path (AC_CHECK_PROG)
in some cases? I did think it was cleaner at some time, but now I know
better :)
Ehm... that's your code and I didn't want to change it. If I remember
correctly, you
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 06:50:13PM +0200, Stephan Witt wrote:
> Am 17.07.2016 um 18:37 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes :
> >
> > * is using $(dirname foo) portable? I would have used `dirname foo`, but I
> > do not really know why.
>
> According to this article
>
>
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 06:37:31PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> Enrico, I still have some questions about that code:
>
> * is using $(dirname foo) portable? I would have used `dirname foo`, but I
> do not really know why.
Because you know better ;) Yes, the backtick notation is more
Am 17.07.2016 um 18:37 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes :
>
> Le 17/07/2016 12:52, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:01:56PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>
Attached a refined version that accounts for the path of the actually
checked tool,
Le 17/07/2016 12:52, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:01:56PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
Attached a refined version that accounts for the path of the actually
checked tool, instead of always using the moc path (even if they are
the same in practice).
Tested and works
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:01:56PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > Attached a refined version that accounts for the path of the actually
> > checked tool, instead of always using the moc path (even if they are
> > the same in practice).
>
> Tested and works well.
Committed at 0c7bd9a5.
--
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 01:48:48AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 07:28:36PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > Nice that is cleaner. I might transition to it. I often use my build
> > script for older commits though so if that only works as of f0aa1299, I
> > will wait.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 07:28:36PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:18:02AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>
> > This is because the code first checks for the existence of qtchooser
> > and then assumes that moc & company understand the -qt=qt5 option.
> > Given that
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:18:02AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> This is because the code first checks for the existence of qtchooser
> and then assumes that moc & company understand the -qt=qt5 option.
> Given that you first set the correct PATH, the moc in
>
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 04:16:08PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 12:02:20PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > commit d044986724e98921510c95adecb61d2688b1f598
> > Author: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> > Date: Mon Jul 4 16:22:57 2016 +0200
> >
> >
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 12:02:20PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> commit d044986724e98921510c95adecb61d2688b1f598
> Author: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> Date: Mon Jul 4 16:22:57 2016 +0200
>
> Autoconf : Try to select the correct Qt tools by using the -qt option
>
Le 05/07/2016 à 16:26, Richard Heck a écrit :
If this proves to work correctly (i.e. if --enable-qt5 is all it takes
to switch from Qt4 to Qt5), then this should eventually go to 2.2.x
(no hurry).
Can you plan to commit it right after 2.2.1 is released?
Sure, I will.
JMarc
On 07/05/2016 06:12 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 05/07/2016 à 12:02, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
>> commit d044986724e98921510c95adecb61d2688b1f598
>> Author: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
>> Date: Mon Jul 4 16:22:57 2016 +0200
>>
>> Autoconf : Try to select the
Le 05/07/2016 à 12:02, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
commit d044986724e98921510c95adecb61d2688b1f598
Author: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Date: Mon Jul 4 16:22:57 2016 +0200
Autoconf : Try to select the correct Qt tools by using the -qt option
With this change, it is
19 matches
Mail list logo