I forgot about this discussion for a while...
Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 12:36:46PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Later on, when it was realized that a fix is needed, it was decided to wait
>> > fo
Hello again,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 10:33:21AM +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> > > I'm afraid we need a design document for the solution.
> Simon, perhaps you could volunteer.
... or you can just wait. I think I have something in mind now,
and hopefully I'll write it down sometimes next week.
Ha
Hello,
> > I'm afraid we need a design document for the solution. Then we can
> > implement it. Have I missed it, or it is yet to be written?
>
> No, I don't think you've missed it; that work still needs to be done.
but I'm not able to do it. Simon, perhaps you could volunteer.
Could you ple
Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm afraid we need a design document for the solution. Then we can implement
> it. Have I missed it, or it is yet to be written?
No, I don't think you've missed it; that work still needs to be done.
___
bug
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 12:36:46PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Later on, when it was realized that a fix is needed, it was decided to wait
> > for Autoconf 2.60, instead of converting gnulib back to the old scheme and
> > later again to the
Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Later on, when it was realized that a fix is needed, it was decided to wait
> for Autoconf 2.60, instead of converting gnulib back to the old scheme and
> later again to the new one.
Right, sure. Btw, can I test this now? Is autoconf CVS HEAD
sufficie
Hello,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 05:13:24PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I think AC_LIBSOURCE probably is
> the right solution, but it would have been nice to introduce it after
> the autoconf/automake/libtool/m4 releases had happened. [...]
> Requiring modern tools for gnulib users is probably
>
Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
> I don't say I'm excited about the AC_LIBSOURCE macro, ...
To understand what I'm writing below: I think AC_LIBSOURCE probably is
the right solution, but it would have been nice to introduce it after
the autoconf/automake/libtool/m4 releases had h
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> If you invoke the tool as:
>
> gnulib-tool --create-testdir --dir=/tmp/testdir regex
>
> It will create an entire new project in /tmp/testdir for the regex
> module. Then you can run it again:
>
> cd /tmp/testdir
> gnulib-tool --import --lgpl regex
>
> After that, you have
Hi,
I don't say I'm excited about the AC_LIBSOURCE macro, ...
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:02:24AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I'm not sure what the supposed advantage with
> AC_LIBSOURCES was compared to the old scheme.
... but I think I do remember what was the advantage:
Imagine that a ne
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Julien PUYDT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Paul Eggert a écrit :
>>> Julien PUYDT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stepan Kasal a écrit :
>I suggest that you get the files from gnulib CVS on savannah.
Those are GPL and not LGPL ;
>>> No, they can b
Julien PUYDT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Paul Eggert a écrit :
>> Julien PUYDT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>Stepan Kasal a écrit :
I suggest that you get the files from gnulib CVS on savannah.
>>>Those are GPL and not LGPL ;
>> No, they can be released under either the GPL or the LGPL.
>> I
12 matches
Mail list logo
