Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #381174 > unrolled thread
| Started by | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-01-29 16:03 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-02-12 02:18 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 415 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-29 16:03 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-30 00:57 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-29 17:38 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 09:06 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 15:23 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 08:36 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 19:12 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-31 00:44 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 01:45 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 04:46 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 11:52 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 16:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 17:57 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-01-30 19:22 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-01-31 16:41 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-01-31 19:01 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-31 20:25 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 09:39 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 11:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 16:11 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 17:33 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 18:34 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-01 22:23 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 20:55 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 13:10 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 22:38 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-02 00:55 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 02:08 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 09:02 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-02 15:28 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 15:49 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-02 16:53 +0200
Stu Feldman (Was: Experimental C Build System) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-02-02 16:29 +0000
Re: Stu Feldman (Was: Experimental C Build System) Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-02 17:29 +0000
Re: Stu Feldman (Was: Experimental C Build System) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-04 05:44 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 13:47 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 15:57 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 15:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 17:44 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 18:26 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 05:45 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-03 21:24 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-03 13:19 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 21:42 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 22:12 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-03 01:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 12:02 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 12:25 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-04 06:47 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 19:52 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 19:58 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 05:52 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-03 14:52 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 14:59 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-04 06:51 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 11:08 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 15:44 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 16:03 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 17:02 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 13:29 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 12:31 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 22:11 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 16:24 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 01:19 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 17:51 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2024-02-04 14:07 +1100
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 20:01 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 04:56 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 21:36 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 21:41 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 13:44 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 15:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 18:27 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 14:52 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> - 2024-02-05 17:57 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 09:17 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-05 19:11 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 12:29 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-04 06:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 14:51 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-03 21:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-03 21:39 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-03 14:23 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 13:48 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 14:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-03 18:17 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 20:12 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-02-04 16:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 14:08 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-04 18:22 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 13:53 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 14:01 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 18:36 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-04 22:46 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 23:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 15:32 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-02-05 17:37 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 18:03 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-05 18:42 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 13:25 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-05 21:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 13:40 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-05 22:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 14:39 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-05 22:47 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-06 00:03 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-05 19:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 00:07 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 16:10 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-05 10:41 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-05 18:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-06 23:41 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 09:56 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 11:10 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2024-02-07 11:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 20:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-08 11:05 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2024-02-07 23:46 +1100
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 15:09 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 14:21 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-07 10:11 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 20:46 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 21:53 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 14:54 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 16:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 17:34 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System [Ben] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 22:50 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 09:40 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-08 11:55 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 12:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 16:35 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 16:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 21:24 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-08 16:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2024-02-08 17:04 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 17:10 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-08 17:25 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-08 23:30 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-08 17:38 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 21:30 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-09 00:58 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 01:14 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-09 01:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-09 01:27 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-09 01:30 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 10:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-09 13:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-09 02:07 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 15:49 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-09 17:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 18:24 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 10:34 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-09 18:42 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 20:41 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-09 21:56 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 22:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-09 23:12 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 23:47 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-10 00:28 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 15:41 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 23:53 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-10 00:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 16:33 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-10 02:26 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-10 02:47 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-10 20:17 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-10 21:02 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-10 20:09 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 22:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-10 19:51 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-09 18:25 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 20:55 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-09 21:06 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 13:15 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-09 22:09 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-10 15:24 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-09 21:04 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 09:21 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-08 17:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-08 23:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 15:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-07 19:24 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 20:44 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 15:30 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-07 10:12 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 08:40 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-07 12:24 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-05 01:45 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 20:17 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 20:41 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 20:46 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-05 06:48 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 11:20 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 13:33 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-02-05 21:57 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 23:20 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 15:41 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-06 01:48 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-02-06 00:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-02-05 06:00 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 22:46 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 15:57 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-05 13:02 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 14:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-05 22:51 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 23:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-06 00:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-06 14:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-06 14:40 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-06 16:59 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-06 19:20 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-06 20:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-06 20:34 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-02-06 20:49 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-06 13:07 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-06 21:39 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-02-07 15:02 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 20:36 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 20:48 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 21:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 23:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 23:58 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-08 01:33 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-08 01:34 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-02-08 01:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-08 02:17 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-07 22:48 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 23:44 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-06 21:09 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-06 21:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-08 17:23 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-07 00:51 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-07 02:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-07 04:21 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-07 07:17 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-07 12:59 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2024-02-07 23:53 +1100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-07 15:45 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2024-02-08 12:56 +1100
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-08 17:22 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-06 00:07 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 10:08 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 11:44 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-09 21:03 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 22:34 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 22:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:28 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 01:03 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 17:42 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 02:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 19:03 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 10:54 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 21:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 16:09 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-03 01:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-03 02:36 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-03 00:53 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 13:51 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-02-03 17:56 -0500
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-04 07:52 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-04 06:18 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-02-02 03:22 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 11:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2024-02-03 00:25 +1100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 13:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 10:47 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-02 15:45 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 16:26 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-03 14:39 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-03 16:26 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-03 17:11 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-06 13:59 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 13:14 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-06 14:32 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-06 14:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 17:02 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-06 20:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 14:14 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-02 16:43 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 15:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-02-02 20:43 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 20:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 16:31 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 17:00 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-02 17:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 10:36 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 19:52 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 20:21 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-02 21:09 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 13:15 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-03 15:13 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 21:23 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 21:51 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-03 01:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 12:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-03 17:59 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 19:35 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-02-03 21:57 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 18:48 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 20:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-04 20:55 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-02-07 02:57 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 03:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 15:27 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 15:48 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 16:30 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-02-08 00:39 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 21:59 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 09:42 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 10:40 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 15:37 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 22:51 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 23:11 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-05 13:42 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-05 14:59 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-05 15:45 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 11:25 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-05 22:46 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-05 14:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-04 22:42 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 14:53 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 14:02 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-05 10:48 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 17:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-05 11:36 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 14:04 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-02 18:54 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 06:04 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 22:13 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 06:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 00:02 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 08:47 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-03 06:30 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 11:17 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 14:02 -0800
[meta] Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-03 15:04 +0100
Re: [meta] Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-03 07:19 -0800
Re: [meta] Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-04 05:29 +0100
Re: [meta] Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 05:37 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-02 16:26 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:30 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 11:05 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 21:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 15:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 00:26 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 00:35 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 11:13 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 10:54 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 14:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 01:46 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-01 16:20 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 21:34 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-01 16:09 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 17:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 19:25 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 19:51 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 12:12 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 12:43 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-01 22:36 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 23:09 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 21:17 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 09:48 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 11:49 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 21:39 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:24 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:38 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-01 23:53 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 23:14 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 09:17 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 12:09 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 15:25 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 17:50 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 03:14 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 20:38 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 13:46 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 14:06 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-05 14:48 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 15:23 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-30 16:46 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 03:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-31 03:23 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 08:47 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 11:02 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 15:31 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 23:00 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 00:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 03:07 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 15:00 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:40 +0000
system(3) (was: Re: Experimental C Build System) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-02-01 08:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 23:02 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 00:33 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:11 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 14:55 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 14:42 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-31 12:19 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 14:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 16:43 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-03 01:05 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 11:54 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-03 07:17 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 15:54 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 16:05 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 12:39 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 22:19 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 20:56 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 20:57 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-31 20:36 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System thiago <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 20:36 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 13:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System thiago <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 20:42 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-12 02:18 +0000
Page 7 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 21 Next page →
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 14:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq03ln$1f2sh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381975 |
On 07/02/2024 14:09, David Brown wrote:
> On 07/02/2024 10:56, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On 07/02/2024 05:41, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> On 2/5/24 12:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-05, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>>> But the tools are *still preinstalled*, so installers can definitely
>>>>> rely on compiling stuff.
>>>>
>>>> No, they aren't. It's common for devel tools not to be part of the base
>>>> system of a distro.
>>>
>>> Wait really?
>>
>> If you install Windows you don't get Visual Studio and you have to
>> install it separately. If you install Linux you get gcc and other
>> development tools, and I don't think there's even a way of setting up
>> the install to say you don't want them.
>>
>
> There are several hundred Linux distributions, not including the niche
> ones or outdated ones. Have you tried them all?
>
> Most "normal user" oriented distros do not have gcc or related tools
> installed by default, nor do most server systems, or firewall systems,
> or small installations. Installing the tools is usually very simple
> ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent), but they are not
> included by default in the installation.
>
>
I've tried a fair number. The ones that used to come CDs for you to boot
on a Windows PC. Ones installed on one or two crummy Linux notebooks.
The ones you downloaded to use with Virtual Box. The various versions
you downloaded and burned into an SD drive to plug into RPIs. And mostly
recently the ones that come with WSL.
I think pretty much all of them that I remember came with a C compiler.
So it is easy to make the assumption that gcc is always available.
But isn't this also supposed to be one big advantage of Linux over
Windows that this stuff is built-in?
> Installing the tools is usually very simple
> ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent),
Is 'apt-get' always available?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 10:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <uq0a3m$1g2qa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381976 |
On 2/7/24 08:21, bart wrote:
> On 07/02/2024 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>> On 07/02/2024 10:56, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On 07/02/2024 05:41, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>> On 2/5/24 12:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-05, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>>>> But the tools are *still preinstalled*, so installers can definitely
>>>>>> rely on compiling stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they aren't. It's common for devel tools not to be part of the
>>>>> base
>>>>> system of a distro.
>>>>
>>>> Wait really?
>>>
>>> If you install Windows you don't get Visual Studio and you have to
>>> install it separately. If you install Linux you get gcc and other
>>> development tools, and I don't think there's even a way of setting up
>>> the install to say you don't want them.
>>>
>>
>> There are several hundred Linux distributions, not including the niche
>> ones or outdated ones. Have you tried them all?
>>
>> Most "normal user" oriented distros do not have gcc or related tools
>> installed by default, nor do most server systems, or firewall systems,
>> or small installations. Installing the tools is usually very simple
>> ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent), but they are not
>> included by default in the installation.
>>
>>
>
> I've tried a fair number. The ones that used to come CDs for you to boot
> on a Windows PC. Ones installed on one or two crummy Linux notebooks.
> The ones you downloaded to use with Virtual Box. The various versions
> you downloaded and burned into an SD drive to plug into RPIs. And mostly
> recently the ones that come with WSL.
>
> I think pretty much all of them that I remember came with a C compiler.
>
> So it is easy to make the assumption that gcc is always available.
>
> But isn't this also supposed to be one big advantage of Linux over
> Windows that this stuff is built-in?
>
> > Installing the tools is usually very simple
> > ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent),
>
> Is 'apt-get' always available?
It depends on the distro. apt is exclusive to Debian/Ubuntu. Other
distros do have their own package managers though.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 20:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq0q6p$1j15l$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381976 |
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 14:21:44 +0000, bart wrote: > The ones that used to come CDs for you to boot > on a Windows PC. Those would be “live CDs”. They might be trying to cater to a wider audience, of both techy and non techy types. Normal distro installers can assume the user is non-techy, and set up defaults accordingly, since the techy ones would know how to ask for more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 21:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uq0qkf$1j1v4$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381976 |
On 07/02/2024 15:21, bart wrote:
> On 07/02/2024 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>> On 07/02/2024 10:56, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On 07/02/2024 05:41, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>> On 2/5/24 12:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-05, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>>>> But the tools are *still preinstalled*, so installers can definitely
>>>>>> rely on compiling stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they aren't. It's common for devel tools not to be part of the
>>>>> base
>>>>> system of a distro.
>>>>
>>>> Wait really?
>>>
>>> If you install Windows you don't get Visual Studio and you have to
>>> install it separately. If you install Linux you get gcc and other
>>> development tools, and I don't think there's even a way of setting up
>>> the install to say you don't want them.
>>>
>>
>> There are several hundred Linux distributions, not including the niche
>> ones or outdated ones. Have you tried them all?
>>
>> Most "normal user" oriented distros do not have gcc or related tools
>> installed by default, nor do most server systems, or firewall systems,
>> or small installations. Installing the tools is usually very simple
>> ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent), but they are not
>> included by default in the installation.
>>
>>
>
> I've tried a fair number. The ones that used to come CDs for you to boot
> on a Windows PC. Ones installed on one or two crummy Linux notebooks.
> The ones you downloaded to use with Virtual Box. The various versions
> you downloaded and burned into an SD drive to plug into RPIs. And mostly
> recently the ones that come with WSL.
>
> I think pretty much all of them that I remember came with a C compiler.
>
> So it is easy to make the assumption that gcc is always available.
>
> But isn't this also supposed to be one big advantage of Linux over
> Windows that this stuff is built-in?
No, but it is all very easily available. I don't know of any distros
that don't have an easy way to install a C compiler.
>
> > Installing the tools is usually very simple
> > ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent),
>
> Is 'apt-get' always available?
It is on any Debian-based distros. There are plenty of other package
managers, with different details in their commands (and the names of
packages), which is why I wrote "or equivalent".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 14:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq05ip$1fdph$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381975 |
On 07/02/2024 14:09, David Brown wrote:
> On 07/02/2024 10:56, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On 07/02/2024 05:41, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> On 2/5/24 12:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-05, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>>> But the tools are *still preinstalled*, so installers can definitely
>>>>> rely on compiling stuff.
>>>>
>>>> No, they aren't. It's common for devel tools not to be part of the base
>>>> system of a distro.
>>>
>>> Wait really?
>>
>> If you install Windows you don't get Visual Studio and you have to
>> install it separately. If you install Linux you get gcc and other
>> development tools, and I don't think there's even a way of setting up
>> the install to say you don't want them.
>>
>
> There are several hundred Linux distributions, not including the niche
> ones or outdated ones. Have you tried them all?
>
> Most "normal user" oriented distros do not have gcc or related tools
> installed by default, nor do most server systems, or firewall systems,
> or small installations. Installing the tools is usually very simple
> ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent), but they are not
> included by default in the installation.
>
>
I've installed Linux several times on a desktop machine. I can never
remember being given an option to not install gcc. It might be buried
away somewhere. Whilst there is embedded Linux, which is a rather
different matter, I've never seen a "normal user" distribution. Since as
you say there are hundreds than they might exist. But the regular
distributions are so easy to find that I'd be sceptical that a normal
user would obtain a "normal user" one.
--
Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books:
https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 16:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <874jektfn0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #381979 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> On 07/02/2024 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>> On 07/02/2024 10:56, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On 07/02/2024 05:41, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>> On 2/5/24 12:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-05, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>>>> But the tools are *still preinstalled*, so installers can definitely
>>>>>> rely on compiling stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they aren't. It's common for devel tools not to be part of the base
>>>>> system of a distro.
>>>>
>>>> Wait really?
>>>
>>> If you install Windows you don't get Visual Studio and you have to
>>> install it separately. If you install Linux you get gcc and other
>>> development tools, and I don't think there's even a way of setting up
>>> the install to say you don't want them.
>>>
>> There are several hundred Linux distributions, not including the niche
>> ones or outdated ones. Have you tried them all?
>> Most "normal user" oriented distros do not have gcc or related tools
>> installed by default, nor do most server systems, or firewall systems, or
>> small installations. Installing the tools is usually very simple
>> ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent), but they are not
>> included by default in the installation.
>>
> I've installed Linux several times on a desktop machine. I can never
> remember being given an option to not install gcc.
Which is beside the point. You said you "get gcc and other development
tools". Which distribution(s) did you install?
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 17:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87ttmkrxdv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #381994 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 07/02/2024 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 07/02/2024 10:56, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> On 07/02/2024 05:41, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>> On 2/5/24 12:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-05, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> But the tools are *still preinstalled*, so installers can definitely
>>>>>>> rely on compiling stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they aren't. It's common for devel tools not to be part of the base
>>>>>> system of a distro.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wait really?
>>>>
>>>> If you install Windows you don't get Visual Studio and you have to
>>>> install it separately. If you install Linux you get gcc and other
>>>> development tools, and I don't think there's even a way of setting up
>>>> the install to say you don't want them.
>>>>
>>> There are several hundred Linux distributions, not including the niche
>>> ones or outdated ones. Have you tried them all?
>>> Most "normal user" oriented distros do not have gcc or related tools
>>> installed by default, nor do most server systems, or firewall systems, or
>>> small installations. Installing the tools is usually very simple
>>> ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent), but they are not
>>> included by default in the installation.
>>>
>> I've installed Linux several times on a desktop machine. I can never
>> remember being given an option to not install gcc.
>
> Which is beside the point. You said you "get gcc and other development
> tools". Which distribution(s) did you install?
Did you reply via email by accident, or would you rather not answer
here?
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 22:50 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Experimental C Build System [Ben] |
| Message-ID | <uq1mhr$1r247$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382001 |
On 2/7/2024 11:34 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 07/02/2024 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 07/02/2024 10:56, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>> On 07/02/2024 05:41, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/5/24 12:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-05, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> But the tools are *still preinstalled*, so installers can definitely
>>>>>>>> rely on compiling stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, they aren't. It's common for devel tools not to be part of the base
>>>>>>> system of a distro.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wait really?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you install Windows you don't get Visual Studio and you have to
>>>>> install it separately. If you install Linux you get gcc and other
>>>>> development tools, and I don't think there's even a way of setting up
>>>>> the install to say you don't want them.
>>>>>
>>>> There are several hundred Linux distributions, not including the niche
>>>> ones or outdated ones. Have you tried them all?
>>>> Most "normal user" oriented distros do not have gcc or related tools
>>>> installed by default, nor do most server systems, or firewall systems, or
>>>> small installations. Installing the tools is usually very simple
>>>> ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent), but they are not
>>>> included by default in the installation.
>>>>
>>> I've installed Linux several times on a desktop machine. I can never
>>> remember being given an option to not install gcc.
>>
>> Which is beside the point. You said you "get gcc and other development
>> tools". Which distribution(s) did you install?
>
> Did you reply via email by accident, or would you rather not answer
> here?
>
Glad to see that you are not dead.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 09:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq27ig$1tcfa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382001 |
On 07/02/2024 17:34, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 07/02/2024 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 07/02/2024 10:56, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>> On 07/02/2024 05:41, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/5/24 12:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-05, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> But the tools are *still preinstalled*, so installers can definitely
>>>>>>>> rely on compiling stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, they aren't. It's common for devel tools not to be part of the base
>>>>>>> system of a distro.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wait really?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you install Windows you don't get Visual Studio and you have to
>>>>> install it separately. If you install Linux you get gcc and other
>>>>> development tools, and I don't think there's even a way of setting up
>>>>> the install to say you don't want them.
>>>>>
>>>> There are several hundred Linux distributions, not including the niche
>>>> ones or outdated ones. Have you tried them all?
>>>> Most "normal user" oriented distros do not have gcc or related tools
>>>> installed by default, nor do most server systems, or firewall systems, or
>>>> small installations. Installing the tools is usually very simple
>>>> ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent), but they are not
>>>> included by default in the installation.
>>>>
>>> I've installed Linux several times on a desktop machine. I can never
>>> remember being given an option to not install gcc.
>>
>> Which is beside the point. You said you "get gcc and other development
>> tools". Which distribution(s) did you install?
>
> Did you reply via email by accident, or would you rather not answer
> here?
>
Me. Yes sorry.
I've lost Google groups. Thunderbird has a "reply" button whch means
"email" and its too easy to press "reply" if you're not terribly used to
it. I did that to KT as well and he wondered why I was replying via email.
--
Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books:
https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 11:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <877cjfrx0p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #382082 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> On 07/02/2024 17:34, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 07/02/2024 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 07/02/2024 10:56, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/02/2024 05:41, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/5/24 12:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-05, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> But the tools are *still preinstalled*, so installers can definitely
>>>>>>>>> rely on compiling stuff.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, they aren't. It's common for devel tools not to be part of the base
>>>>>>>> system of a distro.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wait really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you install Windows you don't get Visual Studio and you have to
>>>>>> install it separately. If you install Linux you get gcc and other
>>>>>> development tools, and I don't think there's even a way of setting up
>>>>>> the install to say you don't want them.
>>>>>>
>>>>> There are several hundred Linux distributions, not including the niche
>>>>> ones or outdated ones. Have you tried them all?
>>>>> Most "normal user" oriented distros do not have gcc or related tools
>>>>> installed by default, nor do most server systems, or firewall systems, or
>>>>> small installations. Installing the tools is usually very simple
>>>>> ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent), but they are not
>>>>> included by default in the installation.
>>>>>
>>>> I've installed Linux several times on a desktop machine. I can never
>>>> remember being given an option to not install gcc.
>>>
>>> Which is beside the point. You said you "get gcc and other development
>>> tools". Which distribution(s) did you install?
>> Did you reply via email by accident, or would you rather not answer
>> here?
>>
> Me. Yes sorry.
> I've lost Google groups. Thunderbird has a "reply" button whch means
> "email" and its too easy to press "reply" if you're not terribly used to
> it. I did that to KT as well and he wondered why I was replying via
> email.
An easy mistake to make. So what Linux distributions did you install
that gave you gcc by default? The ones I've used, don't (though it's
trivial to add build tools later).
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 12:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq2hkf$1v9f9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382091 |
On 08/02/2024 11:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 07/02/2024 17:34, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/02/2024 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/02/2024 10:56, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/02/2024 05:41, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/5/24 12:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-05, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> But the tools are *still preinstalled*, so installers can definitely
>>>>>>>>>> rely on compiling stuff.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, they aren't. It's common for devel tools not to be part of the base
>>>>>>>>> system of a distro.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wait really?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you install Windows you don't get Visual Studio and you have to
>>>>>>> install it separately. If you install Linux you get gcc and other
>>>>>>> development tools, and I don't think there's even a way of setting up
>>>>>>> the install to say you don't want them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are several hundred Linux distributions, not including the niche
>>>>>> ones or outdated ones. Have you tried them all?
>>>>>> Most "normal user" oriented distros do not have gcc or related tools
>>>>>> installed by default, nor do most server systems, or firewall systems, or
>>>>>> small installations. Installing the tools is usually very simple
>>>>>> ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent), but they are not
>>>>>> included by default in the installation.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I've installed Linux several times on a desktop machine. I can never
>>>>> remember being given an option to not install gcc.
>>>>
>>>> Which is beside the point. You said you "get gcc and other development
>>>> tools". Which distribution(s) did you install?
>>> Did you reply via email by accident, or would you rather not answer
>>> here?
>>>
>> Me. Yes sorry.
>> I've lost Google groups. Thunderbird has a "reply" button whch means
>> "email" and its too easy to press "reply" if you're not terribly used to
>> it. I did that to KT as well and he wondered why I was replying via
>> email.
>
> An easy mistake to make. So what Linux distributions did you install
> that gave you gcc by default? The ones I've used, don't (though it's
> trivial to add build tools later).
>
Whilst I've installed Linux many times the names of the distributions
aren't very meaningful to me, the machines are mostly long since
discarded, and I couldn't rightly tell you. But one name I remember is
"Ubuntu". You take what is usually an old machine which has come to the
end of its useful life as Windows computer, but still has a bit of kick
in it and can become a Linux box. So I try to go for a lightweight
distribution which won't stress it out. It chugs through and gives an
install. And don't think there is any tick box or option which says
"don't install gcc". Now other people have said I'm wrong about this,
and of course as programmer I need gcc and wouldn't be interested in
that tick box anyway. But I'm pretty sure you do get gcc by default and
if you had to take special action I would have remembered it.
--
Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books:
https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 16:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uq2sbl$213ok$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382098 |
On 08/02/2024 13:32, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On 08/02/2024 11:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> An easy mistake to make. So what Linux distributions did you install >> that gave you gcc by default? The ones I've used, don't (though it's >> trivial to add build tools later). >> > Whilst I've installed Linux many times the names of the distributions > aren't very meaningful to me, the machines are mostly long since > discarded, and I couldn't rightly tell you. But one name I remember is > "Ubuntu". You take what is usually an old machine which has come to the > end of its useful life as Windows computer, but still has a bit of kick > in it and can become a Linux box. So I try to go for a lightweight > distribution which won't stress it out. It chugs through and gives an > install. And don't think there is any tick box or option which says > "don't install gcc". Now other people have said I'm wrong about this, > and of course as programmer I need gcc and wouldn't be interested in > that tick box anyway. But I'm pretty sure you do get gcc by default and > if you had to take special action I would have remembered it. If you install Ubuntu desktop, then it might have gcc by default (it's a long time since I've used "pure" Ubuntu). Other distributions may be different. People who use Linux as their preferred system usually pick their distributions with a bit of care and thought, and use it on appropriate computers. While it is certainly true that an old and outdated Windows machine can be given new life when the Windows installation is scraped and replaced by Linux, for developers using Linux it is normally an active choice. The last three main development machines I have had at work have never had Windows on them - they were bought for Linux, and used only with Linux. Basically, what you are saying is that your entire Linux experience is a few installations long ago, to briefly play around with it on throw-away machines. And you think that is sufficient to insist that /you/ know details when actual long-term Linux users tell you differently?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 16:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq2vkj$21qi0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382107 |
On 08/02/2024 15:35, David Brown wrote: > On 08/02/2024 13:32, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On 08/02/2024 11:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>> An easy mistake to make. So what Linux distributions did you install >>> that gave you gcc by default? The ones I've used, don't (though it's >>> trivial to add build tools later). >>> >> Whilst I've installed Linux many times the names of the distributions >> aren't very meaningful to me, the machines are mostly long since >> discarded, and I couldn't rightly tell you. But one name I remember is >> "Ubuntu". You take what is usually an old machine which has come to >> the end of its useful life as Windows computer, but still has a bit of >> kick in it and can become a Linux box. So I try to go for a >> lightweight distribution which won't stress it out. It chugs through >> and gives an install. And don't think there is any tick box or option >> which says "don't install gcc". Now other people have said I'm wrong >> about this, and of course as programmer I need gcc and wouldn't be >> interested in that tick box anyway. But I'm pretty sure you do get gcc >> by default and if you had to take special action I would have >> remembered it. > > If you install Ubuntu desktop, then it might have gcc by default (it's a > long time since I've used "pure" Ubuntu). Other distributions may be > different. > > People who use Linux as their preferred system usually pick their > distributions with a bit of care and thought, and use it on appropriate > computers. While it is certainly true that an old and outdated Windows > machine can be given new life when the Windows installation is scraped > and replaced by Linux, for developers using Linux it is normally an > active choice. The last three main development machines I have had at > work have never had Windows on them - they were bought for Linux, and > used only with Linux. > > Basically, what you are saying is that your entire Linux experience is a > few installations long ago, to briefly play around with it on throw-away > machines. And you think that is sufficient to insist that /you/ know > details when actual long-term Linux users tell you differently? > Baby X was developed for Linux. I've used it seriously and not just played around. But whilst I've been given powerful Linux machines to use at university, I've never felt the need for a powerful Linux system for hobby use. But you can run a lot of extremely interesting programs on fairly low powered machines. I don't often install Linux. Usually only when I retire a Windows machine, though I have tried virtual Linux installations under Windows. Sadly this doesn't work well. I don't have no experience at all. Because of the realities of UK economic life, whilst I can easily afford to buy a second computer I can't easily afford to buy a bigger house, and I've only got room for one computer, and I find I can't work on laptops. So whilst I have a Linux machine, it's not currently set up and usable. -- Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 21:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uq3d9j$247ke$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382117 |
On 08/02/2024 17:31, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On 08/02/2024 15:35, David Brown wrote: >> On 08/02/2024 13:32, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On 08/02/2024 11:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >>>> An easy mistake to make. So what Linux distributions did you install >>>> that gave you gcc by default? The ones I've used, don't (though it's >>>> trivial to add build tools later). >>>> >>> Whilst I've installed Linux many times the names of the distributions >>> aren't very meaningful to me, the machines are mostly long since >>> discarded, and I couldn't rightly tell you. But one name I remember >>> is "Ubuntu". You take what is usually an old machine which has come >>> to the end of its useful life as Windows computer, but still has a >>> bit of kick in it and can become a Linux box. So I try to go for a >>> lightweight distribution which won't stress it out. It chugs through >>> and gives an install. And don't think there is any tick box or option >>> which says "don't install gcc". Now other people have said I'm wrong >>> about this, and of course as programmer I need gcc and wouldn't be >>> interested in that tick box anyway. But I'm pretty sure you do get >>> gcc by default and if you had to take special action I would have >>> remembered it. >> >> If you install Ubuntu desktop, then it might have gcc by default (it's >> a long time since I've used "pure" Ubuntu). Other distributions may >> be different. >> >> People who use Linux as their preferred system usually pick their >> distributions with a bit of care and thought, and use it on >> appropriate computers. While it is certainly true that an old and >> outdated Windows machine can be given new life when the Windows >> installation is scraped and replaced by Linux, for developers using >> Linux it is normally an active choice. The last three main >> development machines I have had at work have never had Windows on them >> - they were bought for Linux, and used only with Linux. >> >> Basically, what you are saying is that your entire Linux experience is >> a few installations long ago, to briefly play around with it on >> throw-away machines. And you think that is sufficient to insist that >> /you/ know details when actual long-term Linux users tell you >> differently? >> > Baby X was developed for Linux. I've used it seriously and not just > played around. But whilst I've been given powerful Linux machines to use > at university, I've never felt the need for a powerful Linux system for > hobby use. But you can run a lot of extremely interesting programs on > fairly low powered machines. Certainly you can. > I don't often install Linux. Usually only when I retire a Windows > machine, though I have tried virtual Linux installations under Windows. > Sadly this doesn't work well. I don't have no experience at all. Because > of the realities of UK economic life, whilst I can easily afford to buy > a second computer I can't easily afford to buy a bigger house, and I've > only got room for one computer, and I find I can't work on laptops. So > whilst I have a Linux machine, it's not currently set up and usable. OK. Of course it is completely up to you what you use, and how you use it. But it is wrong to view /your/ ways of doing things as though they are the "normal" way. You can freely install Linux on an older machine and use Windows on newer ones, and you would not be the only one doing that - but it is not by any means the normal situation for people who do serious development on Linux. And it is absolutely fine if you only install Linux very occasionally, and only one or two distros, and only long ago - but it is /not/ fine for you to think that you are right, and others are wrong, about the process.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 16:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <871q9msxxd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #382098 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> On 08/02/2024 11:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 07/02/2024 17:34, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/02/2024 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/02/2024 10:56, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 07/02/2024 05:41, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/24 12:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-05, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> But the tools are *still preinstalled*, so installers can definitely
>>>>>>>>>>> rely on compiling stuff.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, they aren't. It's common for devel tools not to be part of the base
>>>>>>>>>> system of a distro.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wait really?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you install Windows you don't get Visual Studio and you have to
>>>>>>>> install it separately. If you install Linux you get gcc and other
>>>>>>>> development tools, and I don't think there's even a way of setting up
>>>>>>>> the install to say you don't want them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are several hundred Linux distributions, not including the niche
>>>>>>> ones or outdated ones. Have you tried them all?
>>>>>>> Most "normal user" oriented distros do not have gcc or related tools
>>>>>>> installed by default, nor do most server systems, or firewall systems, or
>>>>>>> small installations. Installing the tools is usually very simple
>>>>>>> ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent), but they are not
>>>>>>> included by default in the installation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've installed Linux several times on a desktop machine. I can never
>>>>>> remember being given an option to not install gcc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is beside the point. You said you "get gcc and other development
>>>>> tools". Which distribution(s) did you install?
>>>> Did you reply via email by accident, or would you rather not answer
>>>> here?
>>>>
>>> Me. Yes sorry.
>>> I've lost Google groups. Thunderbird has a "reply" button whch means
>>> "email" and its too easy to press "reply" if you're not terribly used to
>>> it. I did that to KT as well and he wondered why I was replying via
>>> email.
>> An easy mistake to make. So what Linux distributions did you install
>> that gave you gcc by default? The ones I've used, don't (though it's
>> trivial to add build tools later).
>>
> Whilst I've installed Linux many times the names of the distributions
> aren't very meaningful to me, the machines are mostly long since discarded,
> and I couldn't rightly tell you. But one name I remember is "Ubuntu".
Ubuntu does not, as far as I can tell, install gcc by default.
> But I'm pretty sure you do
> get gcc by default and if you had to take special action I would have
> remembered it.
You remember that gcc was installed by default often enough that you
were prepared to claim it as a general rule about Linux, but you can't
remember any of the distributions that did it... Oh well, we'll never
know now.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 17:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnusa2cv.2h7.dan@djph.net> |
| In reply to | #382119 |
On 2024-02-08, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> Whilst I've installed Linux many times the names of the distributions >> aren't very meaningful to me, the machines are mostly long since >> discarded, and I couldn't rightly tell you. But one name I remember >> is "Ubuntu". > > Ubuntu does not, as far as I can tell, install gcc by default. It doesn't. At least not in the past decade (14.04 forward). It may have at one point in the past; but I only started using it *maybe* at 10.04 (more likely 12.04; certainly by 14.04). Now, that is not to say you might not get the option at the tail end of the installation process to select it (amongst other tools), ala Debian's tasksel step. -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 17:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq31ts$22580$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382119 |
On 08/02/2024 16:50, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> But I'm pretty sure you do >> get gcc by default and if you had to take special action I would have >> remembered it. > > You remember that gcc was installed by default often enough that you > were prepared to claim it as a general rule about Linux, but you can't > remember any of the distributions that did it... Oh well, we'll never > know now. You're being unfair. Let's say I've used a dozen versions of prepackaged Linux (eg. as monolithic image, or already installed), which have always had gcc. And another dozen that I've had to install myself. If those asked whether I wanted gcc added, then I really can't remember. Usually there were 1000 packages to install; you just let it get on with it and install the lot. BTW if gcc /isn't/ installed, do you still get a bunch of standard C headers in /usr/include? If so, what do you have to select to not install them?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 17:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i88xN.76397$U1cc.21733@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #382122 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >BTW if gcc /isn't/ installed, do you still get a bunch of standard C >headers in /usr/include? If so, what do you have to select to not >install them? $ rpm -q -f /usr/include/stdio.h glibc-headers-2.18-19.fc20.x86_64 An optional package. glibc will be installed, of course, but the delvelopment package(s) (containing headers, link-time libraries, etc) are optional.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 23:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq3o6d$26ubh$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382128 |
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 17:25:34 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote: > $ rpm -q -f /usr/include/stdio.h Hah. Never typed that often enough to discover that “rpm -q -f” can be shortened to “rpm -qf”? ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 17:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240208093519.256@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #382122 |
On 2024-02-08, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 08/02/2024 16:50, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > >>> But I'm pretty sure you do >>> get gcc by default and if you had to take special action I would have >>> remembered it. >> >> You remember that gcc was installed by default often enough that you >> were prepared to claim it as a general rule about Linux, but you can't >> remember any of the distributions that did it... Oh well, we'll never >> know now. > > You're being unfair. > > Let's say I've used a dozen versions of prepackaged Linux (eg. as > monolithic image, or already installed), which have always had gcc. And > another dozen that I've had to install myself. One of the main points of GNU/Linux distros having developed binary packaging system was so that users didn't have to get sources and build stuff themselves. That was the the big thing: use our distro and everything is prebuilt and easy! The distros made a point of the compiler being unnecessary, and just being another set of packages. Finding a dozen different binary distros that package the compiler as a non-optional base package seems like a historic impossibility. Malcolm probably said yes when prompted for dev tools and doesn't remember. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web