Sylvain BERTRAND writes:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 09:32:33PM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> > Sylvain BERTRAND writes:
> >> I firmely disagree with you on this: the event of somebody hurt
> >> by the GNU GPL with real life facts is of highest importance for
> >> all open source coders. And com
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 09:32:33PM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> Sylvain BERTRAND writes:
>> I firmely disagree with you on this: the event of somebody hurt
>> by the GNU GPL with real life facts is of highest importance for
>> all open source coders. And communication would have been
>> an en
Sylvain BERTRAND writes:
> I firmely disagree with you on this: the event of somebody hurt
> by the GNU GPL with real life facts is of highest importance for
> all open source coders. And communication would have been
> an enrichment for the suckless community.
> The thread will die because I think
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:12:10PM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> Sylvain BERTRAND writes:
>> Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
>>
>> Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
>> files to recompile for a build increment.
>
> For an opinion that matters, t
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:11:38AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > It did not get to me (I'm an internet children, I'm used to
> > trolls).
> > On those later threads, I stayed polite and analytical all the
> > time except, of course, reg
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:27:52PM -0700, Ryan O’Hara wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:01 PM, FRIGN wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:47:27 +0200
> > "Roberto E. Vargas Caballero" wrote:
> >
> >> I agree with you and I like the patch. If nobody have problems with
> >> it I will apply it.
> >
>
Commit 5edeec1 introduced a wrong factor for nanosecond computation, the correct
value is 1E6. Time and timeout values are 10 times less than they should be and
this cause high CPU usage.
Reported by pyroh on IRC. Thanks!
---
st.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:01 PM, FRIGN wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:47:27 +0200
> "Roberto E. Vargas Caballero" wrote:
>
>> I agree with you and I like the patch. If nobody have problems with
>> it I will apply it.
>
> Cool! :)
>
> Yeah, it's the first step on refactoring the main loop. I see
Sylvain BERTRAND writes:
> Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
>
> Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
> files to recompile for a build increment.
For an opinion that matters, try Kernighan & Pike (The Unix Programming
Environment, pg. 241):
It's a nui
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> It did not get to me (I'm an internet children, I'm used to
> trolls).
> On those later threads, I stayed polite and analytical all the
> time except, of course, regarding closed source system software
> manufacturers. Could you pinpoint
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 09:07:26AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote:
> It's the internet, people say stuff, don't let it get to you.
It did not get to me (I'm an internet children, I'm used to
trolls).
On those later threads, I stayed polite and analytical all the
time except, of course, regarding close
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
> I'm very disappointed: I was the guy who was attacked on his
> published work on internet (in a rather clumsy and harsh way).
It's the internet, people say stuff, don't let it get to you.
> Nethertheless, when I'm about to get a very i
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 02:59:09AM +0800, Chris Down wrote:
> Sylvain,
>
> You've had positive contributions here before. Please have consideration
> for the many subscribers who are here to participate in discussion
> related to suckless.org and suckless philosophy, and have no interest in
> mean
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 08:24:23AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > I am confused. The BSD 3-Clause License[0] states the following:
> >
> > "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> > modification, are permi
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> I am confused. The BSD 3-Clause License[0] states the following:
>
> "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:"
>
> Specifically in
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:30:28PM +0200, Kurt Van Dijck wrote:
> In my understanding, GPL enforces that derived work of your code
> will still be free to its users. This covers 2 major aspects:
> * One cannot repackage or modify GPL software and make it non-free
> I think that is a guarantee tha
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 06:33:17AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote:
> Nobody can take your code and make it non-free under a MIT/BSD license,
> they can only make their modifications non-free.
I am confused. The BSD 3-Clause License[0] states the following:
"Redistribution and use in source and binar
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:52:33 -0400
Calvin Morrison wrote:
> Free should mean anyone can take my code and do what they please with
> it. Somewhat free is usually like, they can do whatever they want, but
> leave my name on it. GNU Free is, sure you can use it, but you need to
> contribute back any
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Kurt Van Dijck
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 03:21:01AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote:
>> > The GPL inforces that the codebase stays free.
>>
>> No, all free licenses enforce a continually free codebase. If I
>> release under MIT or BSD, that code that I release wi
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 04:07:14AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote:
> > You have cause and effect written incorrectly. Free software existed
> > first, then licenses were created afterward to protect them.
>
> Ok, well then in popularized or spread "free" software. My point was
> just that "has done go
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 03:21:01AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote:
> > The GPL inforces that the codebase stays free.
>
> No, all free licenses enforce a continually free codebase. If I
> release under MIT or BSD, that code that I release will always be free
> and there's nothing anybody else can do a
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 03:21:01AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote:
> > The GPL inforces that the codebase stays free.
>
> No, all free licenses enforce a continually free codebase. If I
> release under MIT or BSD, that code that I release will always be free
> and there's nothing anybody else can do a
On June 25, 2014 8:00:30 PM CEST, "Roberto E. Vargas Caballero"
wrote:
>DECID version for 7 bits environments already was implemented in st.
>This patch adds the 8 bit version of it.
>---
> st.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/st.c b/st.c
>index f8f262a..
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:09:06PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> Hey Sylvain,
>
> the GNU GPL is best describes as the prophecy of the beast and the
> legend of Dovahkiin, the Last Dragonborn.
> The appearance of the last Dragonborn was prophesied upon the GNU GPL,
> a large edifice found within GNU Haven
please run attached cleaner.exe to reorder the threads according to
the human rights.
> We are still waiting...
Who is that we you're speaking of.
> You have cause and effect written incorrectly. Free software existed
> first, then licenses were created afterward to protect them.
Ok, well then in popularized or spread "free" software. My point was
just that "has done good" doesn't justify its continued use, and
doesn't make it suckless. That
Sylvain,
You've had positive contributions here before. Please have consideration
for the many subscribers who are here to participate in discussion
related to suckless.org and suckless philosophy, and have no interest in
meaningless mud slinging between two people.
There is a good way to approac
On 06/26/2014 12:08 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
> Could you repost on the thread I was rightfully requested to
> create for this topic.
>
No, I have neither a dog in this fight (use whatever works for you,
seriously) nor a desire to alienate a list which
1) I only joined a few days ago,
2) Is
> Could you repost on the thread I was rightfully requested to
> create for this topic.
STOP. PLEASE. get decent mail software that can handle subthreads and
it's not an issue.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:30:48PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> stop repeating yourself. You don't need a new subject and a duplicate
> post to garner a response. what a waste of space
Please, keep this thread for frign to expose *explicitely* what
went wrong with the GNU GPL licenses and discu
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:36:33PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> As rightfully requested.
>
> A dedicated thread.
Sylvain, please don't do this.
I understand why you are so angry and frustrated, it's difficult to argue
about subjective things when people have such strong opinions as in the
su
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:52:07PM +0530, Weldon Goree wrote:
> On 06/25/2014 05:35 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> >
> > Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
> >
> > Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
> > files to recompile for a build increment.
>
> Huh.
As rightfully requested.
A dedicated thread.
--
Sylvain
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:21:05PM -0400, Carlos Torres wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > giberish...
> > Sylvain
> >
>
> why don't you start another thread about makefiles vs shell scripts
Something is not fishy there, I have never sent this message
wtf?
Ye
more bureaucracy.
On 25 June 2014 14:28, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> This is a reboot of the previous thread that was hi-jacked by a
> derived topic ;)
>
> Let's stay focused on the pertinent topic of
> the thread, without the damage of what we wrongly did on the
> thread related to the suckless distro,
>
> thank yo
This is a reboot of the previous thread that was hi-jacked by a
derived topic ;)
Let's stay focused on the pertinent topic of
the thread, without the damage of what we wrongly did on the
thread related to the suckless distro,
thank you for your understanding.
---
> Granted, GPL did a lot of good, it created a free software culture and
> made Linux what it is. Ubuntu has also done a lot of good by getting
> people started in Linux, but that doesn't make it suckless.
You have cause and effect written incorrectly. Free software existed
first, then licenses we
On 06/25/2014 05:35 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
> Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
>
> Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
> files to recompile for a build increment.
Huh. Make strikes me as one of the more suckless tools out there. It
does exactly
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> giberish...
> Sylvain
>
why don't you start another thread about makefiles vs shell scripts
> The GPL inforces that the codebase stays free.
No, all free licenses enforce a continually free codebase. If I
release under MIT or BSD, that code that I release will always be free
and there's nothing anybody else can do about it.
GPL tries to control what other people do with code they wrote.
> You mean "invis"? We already have it in st.info. However this is a good
Yes, I was talking about invis. I didn't remember that we already
have it, although we didn't have implemented it. In fact, in the last
actualization of central terminfo, Thomas E. Dickey removed this
capability from our def
i think Slackware is a fairly simple distro. like sin mentioned you
can have a fairly small install with tag files. It also hasn't
changed much in 10 years. they just have new packages :)
there are some live distros like slax that are based on slackware :)
or corelinux are good.
i think the ef
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 01:52:14PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> >> If you craft your words enough, and trick people enough, then they
> >> will believe it is free, while being coerced into helping the 'greater
> >> good'
> >
> > The 'greater good' isn't a good but a bad thing in your opinion?
>
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:38:01PM -0500, M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
> On 25/06/2014, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > What I mean: it's totally suckless to write more LOC if it
> > reduces the technical cost of the overall software stack (SDKs
> > included!).
> >
> > In the reality, each case is different,
DECID version for 7 bits environments already was implemented in st.
This patch adds the 8 bit version of it.
---
st.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/st.c b/st.c
index f8f262a..4813524 100644
--- a/st.c
+++ b/st.c
@@ -2419,7 +2419,9 @@ tcontrolcode(uchar asc
HTS version for 7 bits environments already was implemented in st.
This patch adds the 8 bit version of it.
---
st.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/st.c b/st.c
index 85e1e0f..e4fab61 100644
--- a/st.c
+++ b/st.c
@@ -2415,7 +2415,9 @@ tcontrolcode(uchar ascii
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 06:46:46PM +0200, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote:
> The implementation is far simple, so I think it is a good idea apply
> this patch. Are you sure that is not there any terminfo capability
> related to this feature? I am not sure, but I think there is one.
You mean "inv
DCS, APC, PM, OSC version for 7 bits environments already was implemented
in st. This patch adds the 8 bit version of it.
---
st.c | 39 ---
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/st.c b/st.c
index e4fab61..982f0f6 100644
--- a/st.c
+++
NEL version for 7 bits environments already was implemented in st.
This patch adds the 8 bit version of it.
---
st.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/st.c b/st.c
index 4813524..85e1e0f 100644
--- a/st.c
+++ b/st.c
@@ -2412,7 +2412,9 @@ tcontrolcode(uchar ascii
>> If you craft your words enough, and trick people enough, then they
>> will believe it is free, while being coerced into helping the 'greater
>> good'
>
> The 'greater good' isn't a good but a bad thing in your opinion?
It's a great thing in my opinion, but coercion isn't really a good way
to ac
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:38:01PM -0500, M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
> Computers are meant to do tedious work for us. That includes us who
> program them. The appropriate metric of code quality, ergo, is how
> much easier it makes one's life. To this end, mental costs trump
> technical costs by far.
>
>
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:38:01 -0500
M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
> You clearly deem a shell an acceptable technical cost, tho itself not
> a simple program. C compilers and OS kernels are yet other technical
> costs. I use all these programs as they give me a uniform common
> interface to launching and co
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:52:33PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> On 25 June 2014 12:49, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> >> Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you?
> >
> > see [0]
> >
> > [0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee
>
> But more seriously, GNU freedo
On 25/06/2014, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> What I mean: it's totally suckless to write more LOC if it
> reduces the technical cost of the overall software stack (SDKs
> included!).
>
> In the reality, each case is different, and people won't draw
> their line in the same place. The important thing i
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:09:06PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 18:47:53 +0200
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
>> Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you?
>>
>> I'm eager to know *exactly* why you were disgusted by the GNU GPL
>> license.
>>
>> It's *very* serious.
>>
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 19:13:33 +0200
"Roberto E. Vargas Caballero" wrote:
> I don't have a clear idea about this patch. I would like listen what think
> another suckless developers before of taking a decision. If we emulate the
> fast blinking with the slow blinking it will not generate any functio
> Add fast blink support
>
> Fast blink is implemented using the new main loop changes. It may mark a
> few characters too many as dirty when the blink state hasn't changed,
> but it's not a major issue.
I don't have a clear idea about this patch. I would like listen what think
an
I think this is a first step in order to improve the code of the main loop,
because it will make the loop more understable. I think in the final
implementation of the main loop we shouldn't need this separation, because
it should be enough simple and clear that spliting it in functions
shouldn't be
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 18:47:53 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you?
>
> I'm eager to know *exactly* why you were disgusted by the GNU GPL
> license.
>
> It's *very* serious.
>
> Since it may change my mind about this license.
Hey Sylvain,
t
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:52:33PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> On 25 June 2014 12:49, Calvin Morrison wrote:
>>> Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you?
>>
>> see [0]
>>
>> [0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee
>
> But more seriously, GNU freedom is
> > is this really necessary? Default constants don't really mean
> > anything, they persist literally until the window is mapped and the
> > text buffer is resized at
> (apologies for accidentally sending)
> L3726, so if anything, I'd vote for their removal, not their
> canonicalization through co
> Render faint attribute
>
> Faint text is implemented by allocating a new color at one-half
> intensity of each of the r, g, b components, or if the text bold at the
> same time, it is not made lighter.
>
I think it is a good idea, but Christoph knows more than me about this pa
On 25 June 2014 12:49, Calvin Morrison wrote:
>> Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you?
>
> see [0]
>
> [0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee
But more seriously, GNU freedom is the same kind of 'freedom' that is
promised by communists. It's actually not
> Implement crossed-out text with an XftDrawRect call, similar to how
> underline is implemented. The line is drawn at 2/3 of the font ascent,
> which seems to work nicely in practice.
Ok, I understand know what you mean with struck attribute. I was thinking
in something very different
> Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you?
see [0]
[0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee
On a previous thread off thread topic, we got this:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 18:07:49 +0200
FRIGN wrote:
...
> I used to be a GPL-fanatic like you, but then I took an arrow to
> the knee.
>
> Cheers
>
> FRIGN
Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you?
I'm eager to know
The implementation is far simple, so I think it is a good idea apply
this patch. Are you sure that is not there any terminfo capability
related to this feature? I am not sure, but I think there is one.
--
Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
I will apply this patch. Even if we don't implement at the end any
difference between fast and slow blinking, I think is a good idea at least
have different bits for them. The same criteria apply to faint, struck
and invisible bits.
Regards,
--
Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
> Greetings,
> I would vote to drop the macro, because supporting it for future
> use-cases can be a nightmare. What to use for ceiliing in those
> calculations is another matter... we could always just add 1 -
> FLT_EPSILON and call it a day.
I agree with you in drop the macro, and because nobody
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:07:17AM -0700, Ryan O’Hara wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>> My arguments are perfectly sensible from the perspective of making
>> SDKs suckless: the avoidance of technically expensive components
>> in small SDKs.
>>
>
> To look at thi
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 05:16:34PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 17:03:28 +0200
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
>> This is where we disagree. You draw the line there: acceptance of
>> the technical cost of make in your SDKs whatever the size.
>> I guess, I draw the line somewhere else, da
On Wed 25 Jun 2014 at 08:39:11 PDT Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
What I mean: it's totally suckless to write more LOC if it
reduces the technical cost of the overall software stack (SDKs
included!).
It's an old argument: cost to develop versus cost to deploy or run.
The trend in mainstream software
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Martti Kühne wrote:
> Thread subjects are overrated. As is bottom posting.
>
touché sir, touché!
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:41:03PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:34:59 +0200
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
>> I did explain my reasons. If you and some others judge them
>> "irrationnal" so be it. My SDKs will be "irrationnal" then :)
>>
>> This is where I draw the line for my SDKs:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Carlos Torres wrote:
> FWIW the subject of the thread is straying away from "suckless distro"
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>>> I stole parts of the ffmpeg confi
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:08:52AM -0400, Carlos Torres wrote:
> FWIW the subject of the thread is straying away from "suckless distro"
Sorry, I took some of my free time to feed the trolls...
I'll stop very soon.
All my apologies.
regards,
--
Sylvain
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:43:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:34:59PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>> This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too
>> annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script --> I'll go makefile
>> to cherry pick what to compile
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 17:03:28 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> This is where we disagree. You draw the line there: acceptance of
> the technical cost of make in your SDKs whatever the size.
> I guess, I draw the line somewhere else, damned!
Says the guy who puts
#This is a brutal makefile... but
FWIW the subject of the thread is straying away from "suckless distro"
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>> I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my
>> needs.
>
> Nothing to see here.
>
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> My arguments are perfectly sensible from the perspective of making
> SDKs suckless: the avoidance of technically expensive components
> in small SDKs.
>
To look at things another way: simple projects don’t require particularly
complicated
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:41:08PM +0200, koneu wrote:
> Thanks. You prefixing the GPL with GNU each and every GNU time
> made this so much GNU more entertaining to GNU read.
I thank you too for your large contribution to the topic. Come
on! If you disagree, give me arguments!
--
Sylvain
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:34:59PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:23:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200
>> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>>
>>> 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all
>>> source files takes little time. The ma
Why not to use simply XLIB??
Look with a minimum of deps, one can easily do a sort of powerful
vector graphics.
To compile mine (which is still too basic), I use only:
gcc -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lX11 x11vectgfx.c -o x11vectgfx ; ./x11vectgfx
The problem I have with Xfig and Xpaint is that it d
I love the comment at the top[0]
[0] https://github.com/sylware/mudev/blob/master/makefile
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:34:59PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too
> annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script --> I'll go makefile
> to cherry pick what to compile/generate and speed up the build.
https://github.com/sylware/charfbuzz/bl
On June 25, 2014 4:34:59 PM CEST, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:23:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200
>> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>>
>>> 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all
>>> source files takes little time. The main purp
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:25:58PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:16:36PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:14:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
On Tue, Jun
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:34:59 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> I did explain my reasons. If you and some others judge them
> "irrationnal" so be it. My SDKs will be "irrationnal" then :)
>
> This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too
> annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script -->
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:23:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
>> 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all
>> source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is
>> to cherry pick what to recompile on large
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:16:36PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:14:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > > > Ther
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:14:31PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > > There's also smdev[0] if you are interested.
> > >
> > > [0] http://git.2f30.or
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:34:32PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my
> > needs.
>
> Nothing to see here.
?
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my
> needs.
Nothing to see here.
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all
> source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is
> to cherry pick what to recompile on large projects in order to
> minimize build time. Pointless and techni
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:38:27PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:57:27AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > Nobody cares how you build the kernel.
>
> Ok, you are from those who does not care.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm from those who do care. Then I should not care
>
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > There's also smdev[0] if you are interested.
> >
> > [0] http://git.2f30.org/smdev
>
> Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
Learn how to w
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:52:47PM +0200, Džen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>> Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
>
> Say what?
See my answer to FRIGN.
regards,
--
Sylvain BERTRAND
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:13:15PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:05:20 +0200
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
>> Using a makefile is overkill. Should be a sh script.
>
>> Makefiles should be used only when there are too many source
>> files to recompile for a build increment.
>
> Are
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
