--- Begin Message ---
Subject: |
Re: Unknown user error? |
Date: |
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:18:31 -0400 |
Larry Jones wrote:
>Derek Robert Price writes:
>
>
>>I think the executable available on cvshome.org wasn't compiled with
>>CVS_BADROOT properly undef'd re:
>><http://ccvs.cvshome.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=72>. CVS_BADROOT is
>>undefined correctly in windows-NT/options.h, so I'm guessing that
>>somehow src/options.h got used instead when the executable was
>>compiled.
>>
>>
>
>I suspect this is a side-effect of getting rid of src/options.h.in
and
>the accompanying autoconf magic.
>
>-Larry Jones
>
>Yep, we'd probably be dead by now if it wasn't for Twinkies. --
Calvin
>
>
Hah. And I thought the generation was pointless since the file was
just
copied. Anyhow, I'm turning most of the options.h options into
configure script options at the moment. And removing some others. I
may change my mind as I consider the implications of blurring the
distinction between system configuration and compile time options, but
it seems to me that configure already does a lot of that and moving
the
options makes sense.
Which reminds me, anyone out there still compiling with RELATIVE_REPOS
undefined? There's been a comment in the code that this would be
removed for over 3 years. Speak now or forever hold your peace.
Derek
--
*8^)
Email: address@hidden
Get CVS support at http://ximbiot.com
--
If that plane leaves the ground and you're not with him, you'll regret
it.
Maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of
your life.
- Humphrey Bogart as Rick, _Casablanca_
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
address@hidden
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Subject: |
Re: Unknown user error? |
Date: |
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:31:18 -0400 |
Derek Robert Price writes:
>
> I think the executable available on cvshome.org wasn't compiled with
> CVS_BADROOT properly undef'd re:
> <http://ccvs.cvshome.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=72>. CVS_BADROOT is
> undefined correctly in windows-NT/options.h, so I'm guessing that
> somehow src/options.h got used instead when the executable was
> compiled.
I suspect this is a side-effect of getting rid of src/options.h.in and
the accompanying autoconf magic.
-Larry Jones
Yep, we'd probably be dead by now if it wasn't for Twinkies. -- Calvin
--- End Message ---