fedora-devel-list
[Prev] Thread [Next] | [Prev] Date [Next]
Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Karel Zak Fri Dec 05 02:01:07 2008
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 02:40:05PM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> needing only CMake vs. needing sh, sed, awk, etc is fewer dependencies.
"The Right Tool For The Job" ... autotools use already implemented
tools (POSIX sed, awk, sh, ..) rather than duplicate functionality &
code. The dependences are price that we pay for this excellent UNIX
idea.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X?, (continued)
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Matthew Woehlke
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Toshio Kuratomi
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Matthew Woehlke
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Patrice Dumas
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Matthew Woehlke
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Patrice Dumas
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Matthew Woehlke
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Patrice Dumas
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Matthew Woehlke
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Colin Walters
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Karel Zak <=
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Kevin Kofler
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Richard W.M. Jones
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Ed Hill
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Kevin Kofler
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Ed Hill
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Kevin Kofler
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Richard W.M. Jones
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Braden McDaniel
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Dan Nicholson
- Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X? Till Maas