On Friday 11 January 2008, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Marc Haisenko wrote:
What about the main configure.in fixes for cross-compiling patch by
me ? Is there anything I need to tweak so you can accept it or is
there some reason why you'd say the patch wouldn't be necessary ?
When adding a
Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 22:10 +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
What I tried to say: excluding /usr/local/[include|lib] is not specific
for cross compiling. This should be a separate setting. Then it can
also be set for cross
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 22:10 +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
What I tried to say: excluding /usr/local/[include|lib] is not specific
for cross compiling. This should be a separate setting. Then it can
also be set for cross compiling.
Thank you for the trigger to
On Thursday 10 January 2008, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
The reason you don't hear from me is that most of my emails to you
bounce back.
Ouch, that's bad... don't know why that happens.
What I tried to say: excluding /usr/local/[include|lib] is not specific
for cross compiling. This should be a
Philip Prindeville wrote:
This is simple enough: suppress the detecting of /usr/local and
putting it into the load path (etc) if we're cross-compiling.
Please review this and if it looks reasonable, signal to whomever to
commit it to the source tree (as a patch, obviously) or cast a
This is simple enough: suppress the detecting of /usr/local and putting it
into the load path (etc) if we're cross-compiling.
Please review this and if it looks reasonable, signal to whomever to commit it
to the source tree (as a patch, obviously) or cast a positive vote or whatever
is
Philip Prindeville wrote:
This is simple enough: suppress the detecting of /usr/local and putting it
into the load path (etc) if we're cross-compiling.
Please review this and if it looks reasonable, signal to whomever to commit
it to the source tree (as a patch, obviously) or cast a
