I do not have this problem on FreeBSD 6.3-STABLE, but on my FreeBSD
7.0-STABLE I get this problem after running an identical ./configure:
[09:11] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (0) {0} % make
Makefile, line 1192: warning: duplicate script for target Modules/ ignored
Makefile, line 1194: warning: duplicate
-On [20080412 09:32], Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Apparently this section is made by makedepend.
I had no updates for makedepend or autotools, but somewhere along the full
upgrade of all my ports makedepend suddenly started to behave, so some
dependency must have
Why is CFLAGS in Makefile.pre.in specified as
CFLAGS= $(BASECFLAGS) $(OPT) $(EXTRA_CFLAGS)
whereas that will negate any CFLAGS you pass to configure?
A normal call to configure (as ./configure --help also explains) can contain
a CFLAGS specification, e.g.:
CFLAGS=-compiler_options
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
Why is CFLAGS in Makefile.pre.in specified as
CFLAGS= $(BASECFLAGS) $(OPT) $(EXTRA_CFLAGS)
whereas that will negate any CFLAGS you pass to configure?
There is a long history to that. The short version is that configure
decides on its own what flags
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Neal Norwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was also going to suggest a platform independent option. I like
-Xwhat-follows-is-impl-dependent.
This would work just fine for us, and it makes sense to have it
available for all implementations. If everyone likes this
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09 2008 at 11:12:58AM BRT, Trent Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Is there another online sprint/bugfix day in the pipeline? If not, can
there be? ;-)
+1.
The Sao Paulo User's
On Sat, Apr 12 2008 at 10:12:18AM BRT, Daniel (ajax) Diniz [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09 2008 at 11:12:58AM BRT, Trent Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
Is there another online
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Frank Wierzbicki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Neal Norwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was also going to suggest a platform independent option. I like
-Xwhat-follows-is-impl-dependent.
This would work just fine for us, and it
Brett Cannon schrieb:
-X is reserved for non-standard arguments
Fine by me.
And implemented in r62293 (trunk)
Christian
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
#!/bin/sh
REPOS=$1
REV=$2
USER=$3
PROPNAME=$4
/data/repos/projects/hooks/mailer.py propchange $@
The script is the same mailer.py that is also invoked in post-commit.
Can anybody see a problem with that?
No, but how many parameters are passed to mailer.py?
if cmd ==
I know this is old stuff, but...
I want to update our Python 2.4 installation at work from 2.4.2 to 2.4.5
(the latest 2.4 source release). I get a test failure for test_pty, an
extra ^M at the end of one line. I don't get a failure in the 2.4.2
installation, but the 2.4.4 and 2.4.5 both fail
I did some more tests concentrating on GCC, partly based on the feedback I
got, results at
http://www.in-nomine.org/2008/04/12/python-26-compiler-options-results/
Executive summary: Python needs to be compiled with -O2 or -O3. Not doing
so, no optimization level, results with GCC 4.2.1 in a
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brett Cannon schrieb:
-X is reserved for non-standard arguments
Fine by me.
And implemented in r62293 (trunk)
Great, thanks! While I'd love to have *both* -X and -J, is that okay
with the other devs?
-Frank
Great, thanks! While I'd love to have *both* -X and -J, is that okay
with the other devs?
+0. If we ever run out of letters for command line options to have
to collect -J, we have deeper problems than having to coordinate
with Jython whether the letter is still available.
Regards,
Martin
http://bugs.python.org/issue1481036
Basically as things are now EOFError is on its own but often wants to be
handled the same as other I/O errors that EnvironmentError currently covers.
Many uses of EOFError in our code base do not provide it any arguments so it
doesn't really fit the (errno,
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did some more tests concentrating on GCC, partly based on the feedback I
got, results at
http://www.in-nomine.org/2008/04/12/python-26-compiler-options-results/
Executive summary: Python needs to be
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Great, thanks! While I'd love to have *both* -X and -J, is that okay
with the other devs?
+0. If we ever run out of letters for command line options to have
to collect -J, we have deeper problems than having to
Frank Wierzbicki writes:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Neal Norwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was also going to suggest a platform independent option. I like
-Xwhat-follows-is-impl-dependent.
This would work just fine for us, and it makes sense to have it
available for all
How about -X is reserved for implementation-specific arguments? Ie,
I suppose that the intent is not that these arguments won't be
standardized, it's that they be standardized by the affected
implementations.
Isn't that bikeshedding?
Regards,
Martin
19 matches
Mail list logo
