Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #172151 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-08-13 14:53 +0100 |
| Last post | 2023-08-29 04:43 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 306 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-13 14:53 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-13 21:45 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-13 23:43 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-14 01:16 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-14 00:46 +0000
Re: Build Systems gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-08-14 01:05 +0000
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 18:59 -0700
Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-08-14 02:44 +0000
Re: Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 20:53 -0700
Re: Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) Matthew Ernisse <matt@going-flying.com> - 2023-08-17 22:00 +0000
Re: Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-18 03:51 -0700
Re: Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 04:58 -0700
Re: Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) Matthew Ernisse <matt@going-flying.com> - 2023-08-18 13:02 +0000
Re: Dev on Windoze Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-08-20 16:14 +0300
Re: Dev on Windoze "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 11:05 -0700
Re: Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:16 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-14 04:03 +0000
Re: Build Systems gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-08-14 10:14 +0000
Re: Build Systems Karl Meyer <karlmeyer25@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 05:16 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-14 10:35 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-14 15:06 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-14 14:58 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-14 15:49 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-14 18:00 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 11:00 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 11:40 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 15:21 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 16:11 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-15 15:39 +0000
Re: Build Systems MJ OS_EXAMINE <m6502x64@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 08:58 -0700
Re: Build Systems gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-08-15 16:44 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 20:00 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 18:03 +0200
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-15 17:01 +0000
Re: Build Systems gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-08-15 17:07 +0000
Re: Build Systems Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-08-15 23:17 +0300
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 22:57 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 18:49 +0100
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 13:13 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 23:09 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 23:36 +0100
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 15:55 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 01:05 +0100
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-16 01:39 +0000
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-16 11:37 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 12:15 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-16 15:16 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 16:34 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 18:07 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-16 17:43 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 18:51 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-16 21:26 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 22:25 +0100
Re: Build Systems Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 00:15 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-17 01:02 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-17 02:56 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-17 11:21 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-17 21:26 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-17 23:40 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-19 00:43 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-17 15:45 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-18 00:24 +0100
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 17:46 -0700
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 18:29 -0700
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 19:13 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-18 14:55 +0200
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 14:34 -0700
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 14:34 -0700
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 15:19 -0700
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 15:43 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-19 13:19 +0200
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 20:56 -0700
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 20:57 -0700
Re: Build Systems "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-08-27 00:01 -0700
Re: Build Systems candycane@f172.n1.z21.fsxnet (candycane) - 2023-08-27 03:34 +1300
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-27 08:32 +0000
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-27 16:58 +0200
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 11:58 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-27 16:52 +0200
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 11:59 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-18 01:49 +0000
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 02:19 -0700
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-19 01:21 +0100
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 18:36 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-19 13:51 +0200
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 05:35 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 00:35 -0700
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 09:54 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 12:30 -0700
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 13:44 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 17:58 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 02:28 +0100
Re: Build Systems Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 00:12 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 11:13 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 11:36 +0100
Re: Build Systems Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 13:37 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 13:51 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-22 14:51 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 17:19 +0100
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 09:30 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 17:51 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-22 16:36 +0000
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-22 16:50 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 18:06 +0100
Re: Build Systems kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-08-22 20:46 +0000
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 12:47 -0700
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 21:06 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-22 17:04 +0000
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-20 00:10 +0100
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 17:50 -0700
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-20 20:48 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-20 22:07 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-21 00:51 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 01:26 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 02:02 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 02:07 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-21 03:13 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 11:09 +0100
Re: Build Systems Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 13:12 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 14:12 +0100
Re: Build Systems Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 14:47 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 19:06 +0100
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-21 18:40 +0000
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 14:39 -0700
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 12:23 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 21:55 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-22 01:31 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 02:18 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-22 14:41 +0000
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 08:03 -0700
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-22 15:33 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 16:20 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-22 15:40 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 17:03 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-23 03:18 +0100
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 19:51 -0700
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-25 02:23 +0100
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 21:24 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-25 11:31 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-25 10:53 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-25 13:55 +0200
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-25 13:54 +0000
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-25 20:55 +0100
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 20:49 -0700
Re: Build Systems Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 08:42 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-23 11:37 +0100
Re: Build Systems Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-08-23 14:02 +0300
Re: Build Systems Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 15:02 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-25 02:17 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-23 14:28 +0100
Re: Build Systems Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-08-23 19:54 +0300
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-23 19:33 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-23 21:13 +0100
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 23:09 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-24 15:32 +0200
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-24 15:51 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-24 18:58 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-24 18:29 +0000
Re: Build Systems vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2023-08-24 20:41 +0000
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-24 23:08 +0000
Re: Build Systems Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2023-08-25 17:22 +0100
Re: Build Systems Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 16:39 +0000
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-25 16:54 +0000
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-25 17:02 +0000
Re: Build Systems Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2023-08-25 19:21 +0100
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-25 18:56 +0000
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 11:44 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-24 18:47 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-24 21:20 +0100
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-24 22:59 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-25 02:18 +0100
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 20:17 -0700
Re: Build Systems Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-08-24 16:30 +0300
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-23 17:43 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-23 20:15 +0100
Re: Build Systems Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-08-26 18:19 +0300
Re: Build Systems Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-26 21:47 -0700
Re: Build Systems Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-08-28 11:31 +0300
Re: Build Systems Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-28 06:48 -0700
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-25 02:11 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-25 11:27 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-25 13:52 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-25 15:40 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-25 20:04 +0200
Re: Build Systems candycane@f172.n1.z21.fsxnet (candycane) - 2023-08-26 00:47 +1300
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-25 21:26 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-26 01:42 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-27 01:16 +0100
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-25 05:51 +0000
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 23:17 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-21 02:52 +0000
Re: Build Systems vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2023-08-21 03:02 +0000
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-21 06:05 +0000
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-21 11:32 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-19 14:42 +0000
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 08:09 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-19 15:59 +0000
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 09:38 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-19 18:16 +0000
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-19 21:02 +0000
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 14:13 -0700
Re: Build Systems Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2023-08-19 19:10 +0000
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-19 21:00 +0000
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 14:22 -0700
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 17:56 -0700
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 18:13 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-20 14:13 +0200
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 06:05 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-20 16:15 +0200
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 09:25 -0700
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 13:35 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-21 14:43 +0200
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 05:52 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 14:30 +0100
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 15:18 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 23:26 +0100
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:11 -0700
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 14:47 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 23:20 +0100
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 15:45 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 00:57 +0100
Re: Build Systems vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2023-08-20 14:24 +0000
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 09:09 -0700
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-20 17:28 +0000
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-19 20:26 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-18 14:50 +0200
Re: Build Systems Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2023-08-18 13:19 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-17 17:16 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-17 17:24 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-18 15:32 +0200
Re: Build Systems Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-18 07:22 -0700
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 07:48 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-18 17:11 +0200
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 08:58 -0700
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:32 -0700
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 04:02 -0700
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 12:26 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-19 13:56 +0200
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 05:43 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-16 11:23 +0200
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 02:34 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-16 12:52 +0200
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 03:56 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-16 13:23 +0200
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 12:55 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-17 15:52 +0200
Re: Build Systems Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-17 02:14 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-17 15:56 +0200
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-17 16:01 +0000
Re: Build Systems Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-17 09:07 -0700
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-17 16:20 +0000
Re: Build Systems Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-17 09:31 -0700
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-17 17:24 +0000
Re: Build Systems Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-08-19 14:06 +0300
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 04:39 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-19 16:46 +0200
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-19 16:00 +0000
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-20 14:15 +0200
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 07:25 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-20 18:03 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-17 19:51 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-18 16:44 +0200
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 08:21 -0700
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-18 15:39 +0000
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-18 17:47 +0200
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 10:49 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-19 15:16 +0200
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 07:58 -0700
Re: Build Systems Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-08-19 09:05 -0700
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 12:48 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 21:36 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 21:43 +0100
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 14:07 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-16 12:46 +0200
Really? (Was: Build Systems) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-08-15 13:15 +0000
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 09:54 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 11:07 +0100
Re: Build Systems Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-08-15 03:42 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 12:14 +0100
Re: Build Systems Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-08-15 05:53 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 15:57 +0100
Re: Build Systems Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-08-15 09:10 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-14 14:49 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-14 14:39 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 11:08 +0200
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 02:56 -0700
Re: Build Systems Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-08-15 03:23 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 11:45 +0100
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 03:53 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 13:15 +0100
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 06:22 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 01:20 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-16 12:57 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 12:19 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-16 15:18 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 18:12 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 18:18 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-16 17:45 +0000
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 15:30 +0200
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 06:58 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-15 14:06 +0000
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 17:08 +0200
Re: Build Systems Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-15 21:46 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-14 15:48 +0000
Re: Build Systems Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 12:16 -0700
Re: Build Systems Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-29 04:43 -0700
Page 2 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 16 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 15:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ubd8t6$2b62u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172176 |
On 13/08/2023 22:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> Lua Interpreter: This had a makefile, but gave errors. > > Linux software, does not compile without effort on Windows. In other > news, bear defecates in the woods. > >> A closer look >> revealed things like "-DLINUX...". I know this builds on Windows, but there >> was no info as to how that I could see. > > They make it hard. It's hidden on the download page under the heading > "Building" with the confusing link "detailed instructions". > > But again, what has this do with make? > I opened a command prompt on my Windows PC, downloaded lua source and built it according to the "detailed instructions". All told, it took about a minute, including reading the instructions. "make" on Windows works fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 14:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ubdbtc$2bl3l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172222 |
On 14/08/2023 14:06, David Brown wrote:
> On 13/08/2023 22:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>
>>> Lua Interpreter: This had a makefile, but gave errors.
>>
>> Linux software, does not compile without effort on Windows. In other
>> news, bear defecates in the woods.
>>
>>> A closer look
>>> revealed things like "-DLINUX...". I know this builds on Windows, but
>>> there
>>> was no info as to how that I could see.
>>
>> They make it hard. It's hidden on the download page under the heading
>> "Building" with the confusing link "detailed instructions".
>>
>> But again, what has this do with make?
>>
>
> I opened a command prompt on my Windows PC, downloaded lua source and
> built it according to the "detailed instructions". All told, it took
> about a minute, including reading the instructions. "make" on Windows
> works fine.
So, how did you do it? I assume this is proper Windows and not WSL.
On the downloaded source bundle from Github, there were no such
instructions.
If I go to the 'detailed instructions', there I managed to derive a list
of .c files, which I put into a text file called 'fred'.
Then I can build Lua using any of:
bcc @fred -old
tcc @fred
gcc @fred -olua -O3
So the build system is - a list of 33 files (which I compiled into one
.exe; Lua prefers to split it into .exe and .dll).
No make file needed in this case at all. The supplied makefile was 25
times bigger than the simple list.
However, the point I already made was that I /wanted/ to 'make' to see
if I could get through it without errors.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 15:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <12sCM.59051$m8Ke.22097@fx08.iad> |
| In reply to | #172224 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 14/08/2023 14:06, David Brown wrote: > > On 13/08/2023 22:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> > > > >>> Lua Interpreter: This had a makefile, but gave errors. > >> > >> Linux software, does not compile without effort on Windows. In other > >> news, bear defecates in the woods. > >> > >>> A closer look > >>> revealed things like "-DLINUX...". I know this builds on Windows, but > >>> there > >>> was no info as to how that I could see. > >> > >> They make it hard. It's hidden on the download page under the heading > >> "Building" with the confusing link "detailed instructions". > >> > >> But again, what has this do with make? > >> > > > > I opened a command prompt on my Windows PC, downloaded lua source and > > built it according to the "detailed instructions". All told, it took > > about a minute, including reading the instructions. "make" on Windows > > works fine. > >So, how did you do it? I assume this is proper Windows and not WSL. > >On the downloaded source bundle from Github, there were no such >instructions. You've been pointed to the instructions more than once in this thread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 18:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ubdmk4$2dao7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172228 |
On 14/08/2023 16:49, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> So, how did you do it? I assume this is proper Windows and not WSL. >> >> On the downloaded source bundle from Github, there were no such >> instructions. > > You've been pointed to the instructions more than once in this > thread. And I've twice said I've found them. I also said how I eventually managed to build that program (hint: it didn't involve a makefile). But what those other commentators have not said is how they would build it or have built it. With a working Windows makefile or not? I still don't know. I do know that all 5 projects I mentioned could be trivially built with the simplest script. Yet all through the other thread everybody was pushing make and makefiles. But then you always make these drive-past comments in claiming something that isn't true, or suggesting I'm lying about something, or saying my in-house languages were hobby projects, and never back them up or admit you were wrong. It seems like a personal campaign against me. So, in that case: fuck you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 11:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ubfeqj$2oop4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172233 |
On 14/08/2023 19:00, Bart wrote: > On 14/08/2023 16:49, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> So, how did you do it? I assume this is proper Windows and not WSL. >>> >>> On the downloaded source bundle from Github, there were no such >>> instructions. >> >> You've been pointed to the instructions more than once in this >> thread. > > And I've twice said I've found them. Apparently not. > I also said how I eventually > managed to build that program (hint: it didn't involve a makefile). > > But what those other commentators have not said is how they would build > it or have built it. I told you how /I/ built it on Windows - by following the instructions, using "make" on Windows. And now in another post I've given even more details, which I hope will answer all your questions. > With a working Windows makefile or not? I still > don't know. You would have known if you'd read my post yesterday in which I said that is /exactly/ what I did. > > I do know that all 5 projects I mentioned could be trivially built with > the simplest script. Yet all through the other thread everybody was > pushing make and makefiles. > Probably all projects /could/ be built with scripts - though for many projects, it would not be trivial. But that does not make scripts the best choice for building them. And such scripts are certainly not the best choice when developing projects (as distinct from distributing complete ready-to-use projects, which is a very different thing). > But then you always make these drive-past comments in claiming something > that isn't true, or suggesting I'm lying about something, or saying my > in-house languages were hobby projects, and never back them up or admit > you were wrong. > > It seems like a personal campaign against me. > When you are saying one thing, and everyone else is saying something different, does it ever occur to you that perhaps /you/ are the one that is in the wrong? This is not a "campaign against you". These threads are (for me, at least), an attempt to educate you and help you at least appreciate why other people use tools like make and gcc, even if /you/ don't like them. And they are also to counter misinformation and confusion that you post - other people might read your posts and think they are accurate or represent reality for C development.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 11:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ubfknf$2plvs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172245 |
On 15/08/2023 10:00, David Brown wrote: > On 14/08/2023 19:00, Bart wrote: >> On 14/08/2023 16:49, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>>> So, how did you do it? I assume this is proper Windows and not WSL. >>>> >>>> On the downloaded source bundle from Github, there were no such >>>> instructions. >>> >>> You've been pointed to the instructions more than once in this >>> thread. >> >> And I've twice said I've found them. > > Apparently not. > >> I also said how I eventually managed to build that program (hint: it >> didn't involve a makefile). >> >> But what those other commentators have not said is how they would >> build it or have built it. > > I told you how /I/ built it on Windows - by following the instructions, > using "make" on Windows. And now in another post I've given even more > details, which I hope will answer all your questions. > >> With a working Windows makefile or not? I still don't know. > > You would have known if you'd read my post yesterday in which I said > that is /exactly/ what I did. Your post yesterday said this: >I opened a command prompt on my Windows PC, downloaded lua source and built it according to the "detailed instructions". All told, it took about a minute, including reading the instructions. "make" on Windows works fine. You didn't say how you invoked it. Today you said it was "make mingw". (But you also have a funny idea of what 'proper Windows' is. For me it is not using CYGWIN, MSYS2 or WSL.) For me it didn't work. Please post the makefile you used; it should only be 210 lines. If isn't 210 lines, then that can explain some things. >> I do know that all 5 projects I mentioned could be trivially built >> with the simplest script. Yet all through the other thread everybody >> was pushing make and makefiles. >> > > Probably all projects /could/ be built with scripts - though for many > projects, it would not be trivial. But that does not make scripts the > best choice for building them. And such scripts are certainly not the > best choice when developing projects (as distinct from distributing > complete ready-to-use projects, which is a very different thing). I've used simple lists of source files for developing software for my whole career. But then, I've always taken care of everything to do with development, and written all the software which I use at the source code level. So I've been able to ensure the process was always usable, simple, and fast. Even using floppies. >> But then you always make these drive-past comments in claiming >> something that isn't true, or suggesting I'm lying about something, or >> saying my in-house languages were hobby projects, and never back them >> up or admit you were wrong. >> >> It seems like a personal campaign against me. >> > > When you are saying one thing, and everyone else is saying something > different, does it ever occur to you that perhaps /you/ are the one that > is in the wrong? When I complain about people deifying C, you say but of course other people can see its shortcomings. But 'make' really is perfect? I find it totally and utterly unusable. And yes I have tried to read the 240-page manual, I gave up on page 10. And as explained, I have tried to use other people's makefiles, and found them prone to failures. But since they are so impenetrable, I can't fix them. As a language designer it just offended me. That must be a better way to do what it does, if it that is even necessary. > > This is not a "campaign against you". These threads are (for me, at > least), an attempt to educate you and help you at least appreciate why > other people use tools like make and gcc, even if /you/ don't like them. > And they are also to counter misinformation and confusion that you > post - other people might read your posts and think they are accurate or > represent reality for C development. People will read YOUR posts and get the idea that if THEY find 'make' hard going, then it must be their fault for being too thick or not having the right aptitude. Since it can't possibly be because make is a terrible language. And YES, simple solutions can work, the KISS principle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 15:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ubfu4d$2r98d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172250 |
On 15/08/2023 12:40, Bart wrote: > On 15/08/2023 10:00, David Brown wrote: > > On 14/08/2023 19:00, Bart wrote: > >> On 14/08/2023 16:49, Scott Lurndal wrote: > >>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> > >>>> So, how did you do it? I assume this is proper Windows and not WSL. > >>>> > >>>> On the downloaded source bundle from Github, there were no such > >>>> instructions. > >>> > >>> You've been pointed to the instructions more than once in this > >>> thread. > >> > >> And I've twice said I've found them. > > > > Apparently not. > > > >> I also said how I eventually managed to build that program (hint: it > >> didn't involve a makefile). > >> > >> But what those other commentators have not said is how they would > >> build it or have built it. > > > > I told you how /I/ built it on Windows - by following the instructions, > > using "make" on Windows. And now in another post I've given even more > > details, which I hope will answer all your questions. > > > >> With a working Windows makefile or not? I still don't know. > > > > You would have known if you'd read my post yesterday in which I said > > that is /exactly/ what I did. > > Your post yesterday said this: > > >I opened a command prompt on my Windows PC, downloaded lua source and > built it according to the "detailed instructions". All told, it took > about a minute, including reading the instructions. "make" on Windows > works fine. > > You didn't say how you invoked it. Today you said it was "make mingw". I gave more details today, yes - but yesterday I had already said I used "make". > (But you also have a funny idea of what 'proper Windows' is. For me it > is not using CYGWIN, MSYS2 or WSL.) What a truly bizarre "No true Scotsman" argument! Would you also say that it is impossible to write documents on "proper Windows" because Windows doesn't come with a word processor? > > For me it didn't work. Please post the makefile you used; it should only > be 210 lines. If isn't 210 lines, then that can explain some things. I downloaded the tarball referenced (lua-5.4.6.tar.gz). There is a Makefile in the main directory, of 106 lines, and a Makefile in the src directory of 225 lines. Did you not even /try/ to follow the instructions before complaining that nothing worked for you? > > When you are saying one thing, and everyone else is saying something > > different, does it ever occur to you that perhaps /you/ are the one that > > is in the wrong? > > When I complain about people deifying C, you say but of course other > people can see its shortcomings. No one thinks C is perfect. > > But 'make' really is perfect? No one thinks "make" is perfect. > I find it totally and utterly unusable. That's just you. Plenty of people find it entirely usable, and extremely useful. Other people find it hard to use, or prefer other tools. You are not unique in disliking "make", or not finding it useful. But I think you /are/ unique in how strongly you are convinced that you, personally, are the only one who understands how terrible and useless tools such as "make", "gcc", and the C language are, and how everyone else who believes they have been using these tools for nearly 50 years is just imagining that they work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 16:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ubg4jr$2se4o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172272 |
On 15/08/2023 14:21, David Brown wrote: > On 15/08/2023 12:40, Bart wrote: >> (But you also have a funny idea of what 'proper Windows' is. For me it >> is not using CYGWIN, MSYS2 or WSL.) > > What a truly bizarre "No true Scotsman" argument! Would you also say > that it is impossible to write documents on "proper Windows" because > Windows doesn't come with a word processor? What is bizarre is thinking WSL (ie. Ubuntu) is proper Windows. I can't build under WSL and send the binary to somebody running Windows. Not unless they also run it under their Ubuntu. So why even bother with Windows? MSYS2, I've no idea what I'll end up with there. Either way, none of these extra layers is necessary. Compiling C under pure Windows is not hard! >> >> For me it didn't work. Please post the makefile you used; it should >> only be 210 lines. If isn't 210 lines, then that can explain some things. > > I downloaded the tarball referenced (lua-5.4.6.tar.gz). There is a > Makefile in the main directory, of 106 lines, and a Makefile in the src > directory of 225 lines. > > Did you not even /try/ to follow the instructions before complaining > that nothing worked for you? My recent post goes into this in more detail. But, I've believe the ZIP files from the Github Lua repository are incorrect. This applies to: * The displayed file hierarchy * The ZIP from Download ZIP * The ZIPs (the latest at least) from Releases. They don't match the contents of the .tar.gz versions. I think this the first directory layer is missing, so it only has the inner makefile, not the outer makefile of 106 lines. I tried building only via those ZIPs. So, whose fault is that? I usually avoid .tar.gz files since they are a pig to extract on Windows. It involves using 7-Zip, but is still a trial-and-error process.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 15:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <N_MCM.91256$VzFf.26025@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #172293 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >So why even bother with Windows? A good question, indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MJ OS_EXAMINE <m6502x64@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 08:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1dcd9ed8-d345-45f1-8b9b-7ef1f2f4cb04n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #172293 |
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 11:12:10 AM UTC-4, Bart wrote: > I usually avoid .tar.gz files since they are a pig to extract on > Windows. It involves using 7-Zip, but is still a trial-and-error process. I don't think that's been necessary for a few Windows versions now. These days, Windows comes with its own built-in tar that allows you to just: tar -xvf lua-5.4.6.tar.gz x lua-5.4.6/ x lua-5.4.6/Makefile x lua-5.4.6/doc/ x lua-5.4.6/doc/luac.1 x lua-5.4.6/doc/manual.html x lua-5.4.6/doc/manual.css x lua-5.4.6/doc/contents.html x lua-5.4.6/doc/lua.css x lua-5.4.6/doc/osi-certified-72x60.png x lua-5.4.6/doc/logo.gif x lua-5.4.6/doc/lua.1 x lua-5.4.6/doc/index.css x lua-5.4.6/doc/readme.html x lua-5.4.6/src/ x lua-5.4.6/src/ldblib.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lmathlib.c x lua-5.4.6/src/loslib.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lvm.c x lua-5.4.6/src/ldo.h x lua-5.4.6/src/lua.h x lua-5.4.6/src/lgc.h x lua-5.4.6/src/ltm.h x lua-5.4.6/src/loadlib.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lmem.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lstate.h x lua-5.4.6/src/Makefile x lua-5.4.6/src/lzio.h x lua-5.4.6/src/luaconf.h x lua-5.4.6/src/lopcodes.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lua.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lundump.h x lua-5.4.6/src/ljumptab.h x lua-5.4.6/src/lbaselib.c x lua-5.4.6/src/ltable.c x lua-5.4.6/src/ldump.c x lua-5.4.6/src/liolib.c x lua-5.4.6/src/llimits.h x lua-5.4.6/src/lfunc.h x lua-5.4.6/src/lualib.h x lua-5.4.6/src/lzio.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lopnames.h x lua-5.4.6/src/lctype.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lmem.h x lua-5.4.6/src/llex.h x lua-5.4.6/src/ltable.h x lua-5.4.6/src/lstring.c x lua-5.4.6/src/ldebug.h x lua-5.4.6/src/lprefix.h x lua-5.4.6/src/llex.c x lua-5.4.6/src/linit.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lobject.h x lua-5.4.6/src/lapi.h x lua-5.4.6/src/ldebug.c x lua-5.4.6/src/ldo.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lvm.h x lua-5.4.6/src/lauxlib.c x lua-5.4.6/src/luac.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lctype.h x lua-5.4.6/src/lstring.h x lua-5.4.6/src/lcorolib.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lutf8lib.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lgc.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lstate.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lundump.c x lua-5.4.6/src/ltablib.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lauxlib.h x lua-5.4.6/src/ltm.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lparser.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lcode.h x lua-5.4.6/src/lobject.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lcode.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lopcodes.h x lua-5.4.6/src/lfunc.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lapi.c x lua-5.4.6/src/lparser.h x lua-5.4.6/src/lua.hpp x lua-5.4.6/src/lstrlib.c x lua-5.4.6/README See: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/community/team-blog/2017/20171219-tar-and-curl-come-to-windows
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 16:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ubga27$3jtvo$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #172306 |
In article <1dcd9ed8-d345-45f1-8b9b-7ef1f2f4cb04n@googlegroups.com>, MJ OS_EXAMINE <m6502x64@gmail.com> wrote: >On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 11:12:10AM UTC-4, Bart wrote: >> I usually avoid .tar.gz files since they are a pig to extract on >> Windows. It involves using 7-Zip, but is still a trial-and-error process. > >I don't think that's been necessary for a few Windows versions now. >These days, Windows comes with its own built-in tar that allows you to just: Yes, but "modern" Windows is crap. Last good version: XP Last usable version: 7 -- The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4 lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL: http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/DanQuayle
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 20:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ubgi01$2ug97$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172306 |
On 15/08/2023 16:58, MJ OS_EXAMINE wrote: > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 11:12:10 AM UTC-4, Bart wrote: >> I usually avoid .tar.gz files since they are a pig to extract on >> Windows. It involves using 7-Zip, but is still a trial-and-error process. > > I don't think that's been necessary for a few Windows versions now. > These days, Windows comes with its own built-in tar that allows you to just: > tar -xvf lua-5.4.6.tar.gz > See: > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/community/team-blog/2017/20171219-tar-and-curl-come-to-windows Oh is it back? I remember 'tar' from long ago, but it only did .tar files iirc. But your link is dated 2023, it seems to be recent. .tar.gz and like files I think were supposed to be handled directly by Windows, but that never worked. I had to use a package called 7-Zip, and it was dire. You clicked Extract, and it did half the job; you had a .tar file. You clicked extract on that, and nothing happened. Eventually it would deign to extract files, but it was pot-luck where they would end up, or how deeply nested, even if you gave a path. It was confusing also because you could just click and go inside the archive, but I think you'd need to be at the right location for Extract to work. So thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 18:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ubg7ku$2srfk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172293 |
On 15/08/2023 17:11, Bart wrote: > On 15/08/2023 14:21, David Brown wrote: > > On 15/08/2023 12:40, Bart wrote: > >> (But you also have a funny idea of what 'proper Windows' is. For me it > >> is not using CYGWIN, MSYS2 or WSL.) > > > > What a truly bizarre "No true Scotsman" argument! Would you also say > > that it is impossible to write documents on "proper Windows" because > > Windows doesn't come with a word processor? > > What is bizarre is thinking WSL (ie. Ubuntu) is proper Windows. I can't > build under WSL and send the binary to somebody running Windows. Not > unless they also run it under their Ubuntu. > > So why even bother with Windows? > > MSYS2, I've no idea what I'll end up with there. Right, so you'll condemn it from the get-go despite having no idea about it? That's a great attitude. > Either way, none of > these extra layers is necessary. Apparently they are. Certainly I had no problems and built Lua in under a minute (including downloading and reading the instructions), resulting in an executable that will work on any Windows system. You, who do not have msys2 or anything else that even hints of coming from the *nix world, have had all sorts of trouble. > > Compiling C under pure Windows is not hard! > > > >> > >> For me it didn't work. Please post the makefile you used; it should > >> only be 210 lines. If isn't 210 lines, then that can explain some > things. > > > > I downloaded the tarball referenced (lua-5.4.6.tar.gz). There is a > > Makefile in the main directory, of 106 lines, and a Makefile in the src > > directory of 225 lines. > > > > Did you not even /try/ to follow the instructions before complaining > > that nothing worked for you? > > My recent post goes into this in more detail. But, I've believe the ZIP > files from the Github Lua repository are incorrect. This applies to: > > * The displayed file hierarchy > > * The ZIP from Download ZIP > > * The ZIPs (the latest at least) from Releases. > The build instructions and the releases are from lua.org, not github. That's for development work (which is most likely targeting Linux). > They don't match the contents of the .tar.gz versions. I think this the > first directory layer is missing, so it only has the inner makefile, not > the outer makefile of 106 lines. > > I tried building only via those ZIPs. > > So, whose fault is that? Yours - you did not read the build instructions, but ploughed on with your own guesswork and got into trouble. > > I usually avoid .tar.gz files since they are a pig to extract on > Windows. It involves using 7-Zip, but is still a trial-and-error process. > Is there /nothing/ in this world that you don't find hard? How can you possibly have trouble with a simple compressed archive? It's not as if it contains filenames that Windows can't handle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 17:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qbOCM.632529$TPw2.568059@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #172309 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >On 15/08/2023 17:11, Bart wrote: >> On 15/08/2023 14:21, David Brown wrote: >> >> I usually avoid .tar.gz files since they are a pig to extract on >> Windows. It involves using 7-Zip, but is still a trial-and-error process. >> > >Is there /nothing/ in this world that you don't find hard? How can you >possibly have trouble with a simple compressed archive? It's not as if >it contains filenames that Windows can't handle. IIRC, Windows filesystems are case insensitive. Would not that preclude successfully unpacking a tarball which contains two filenames which differ only in case?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 17:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ubgbc4$3jtvo$2@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #172316 |
In article <qbOCM.632529$TPw2.568059@fx17.iad>, Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote: >David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>On 15/08/2023 17:11, Bart wrote: >>> On 15/08/2023 14:21, David Brown wrote: > >>> >>> I usually avoid .tar.gz files since they are a pig to extract on >>> Windows. It involves using 7-Zip, but is still a trial-and-error process. >>> >> >>Is there /nothing/ in this world that you don't find hard? How can you >>possibly have trouble with a simple compressed archive? It's not as if >>it contains filenames that Windows can't handle. > >IIRC, Windows filesystems are case insensitive. Would not that preclude >successfully unpacking a tarball which contains two filenames which differ >only in case? > Yes, true, but irrelevant. I believe David is asserting that the lua tarball (which *is* the thing we are discussing) does not have any such issues. Whether that is actually true or not, I have no idea. Nor do I care. -- Politics is show business for ugly people. Sports is politics for stupid people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 23:17 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87y1ic2h74.fsf@fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #172316 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>On 15/08/2023 17:11, Bart wrote: >>> On 15/08/2023 14:21, David Brown wrote: >>> I usually avoid .tar.gz files since they are a pig to extract on >>> Windows. It involves using 7-Zip, but is still a trial-and-error process. >>> >> >>Is there /nothing/ in this world that you don't find hard? How can you >>possibly have trouble with a simple compressed archive? It's not as if >>it contains filenames that Windows can't handle. > > IIRC, Windows filesystems are case insensitive. Would not that preclude > successfully unpacking a tarball which contains two filenames which differ > only in case? Depends on whether "successfully" is viewed from the perspective of the person trying to root your system, as in this git(hub) bug from nearly a decade ago: https://www.beyondtrust.com/blog/entry/dissecting-githubs-case-insensitive-discrepancies TL;DF: create some ``.Git/hooks/*'' files or a ``.Git/config'' file Phil -- We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization. -- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 22:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ubgosn$2vef0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172316 |
On 15/08/2023 19:01, Scott Lurndal wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> On 15/08/2023 17:11, Bart wrote: >>> On 15/08/2023 14:21, David Brown wrote: > >>> >>> I usually avoid .tar.gz files since they are a pig to extract on >>> Windows. It involves using 7-Zip, but is still a trial-and-error process. >>> >> >> Is there /nothing/ in this world that you don't find hard? How can you >> possibly have trouble with a simple compressed archive? It's not as if >> it contains filenames that Windows can't handle. > > IIRC, Windows filesystems are case insensitive. Would not that preclude > successfully unpacking a tarball which contains two filenames which differ > only in case? > Yes - but the tarball in question does not have such files. (NTFS supports having files whose names differ only in case, because it was made to support POSIX semantics, from early plans for WinNT to be more POSIX-like. It is possible to create filenames on an NTFS drive that normal Windows programs can't handle, causing much fun as a prank.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 18:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ubgdr5$2tro0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172309 |
On 15/08/2023 17:03, David Brown wrote:
> On 15/08/2023 17:11, Bart wrote:
>> My recent post goes into this in more detail. But, I've believe the
>> ZIP files from the Github Lua repository are incorrect. This applies to:
>>
>> * The displayed file hierarchy
>>
>> * The ZIP from Download ZIP
>>
>> * The ZIPs (the latest at least) from Releases.
>>
>
> The build instructions and the releases are from lua.org, not github.
> That's for development work (which is most likely targeting Linux).
>
>> They don't match the contents of the .tar.gz versions. I think this
>> the first directory layer is missing, so it only has the inner
>> makefile, not the outer makefile of 106 lines.
>>
>> I tried building only via those ZIPs.
>>
>> So, whose fault is that?
>
> Yours - you did not read the build instructions, but ploughed on with
> your own guesswork and got into trouble.
The releases page for Github Lua, for version 5.4.6, has these two assets:
* Source code: v5.4.6.zip
* Source code: v5.4.6.tar.gz
TELL me where in the build instructions it says that the contents of
these two files are incompatible.
THEN then tell me why they are incompatible, and what the point is of
the .zip version since it has a missing outer makefile.
NOW tell me why on earth someone would know, or even guess, that the
source bundles contained in those files are anything other than the same
data, packaged in different types of containers.
This is from a Github page about downloading source code archives:
"(4) To download the source code, click Source code (zip) or Source
code (tar.gz)."
(https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/working-with-files/using-files/downloading-source-code-archives)
Notice it says 'zip' OR 'tar.gz'. Presumably it shouldn't matter which.
------------------------------------------------
You know, one thing is going 100% certain in this thread: you are never
for one minute going to admit that I'm right in there being something
wrong with those Github ZIPs.
You didn't see the problem because you either obtained the source bundle
elsewhere, or would have used only the .tar.gz version.
So, fuck you as well as Scott. This clearly is a personal vendetta.
You hate me so much that whenever I find a problem anywhere, it
automatically has to be my fault, even when it isn't!
And you're so intent on proving me wrong, that you even delude yourself
that doing this:
curl -R -O http://www.lua.org/ftp/lua-5.4.6.tar.gz
tar zxf lua-5.4.6.tar.gz
cd lua-5.4.6
make all test
is 'installing it on Windows'. And when challenged, you say that doing
it under MSYS2 is also 'installing it on Windows'.
You know, I don't believe you actually know how to do this under plain
Windows! Otherwise you would have done so; you must know that's what I use.)
This is what /I/ achieved in trying to build this project:
* I managed it without make
* I managed it in plain Windows
* I managed it even from the faulty Github ZIP files with the missing
outer layer
* I /discovered/ there was a missing outer layer (you're welcome)
* I found out the lua.org's Readme should be overhauled as the Windows
build info is unclear (you of course couldn't give a cuss about that, so
long as you can prove me wrong about the info being in there, if you
joined enough dots)
So, what have /you/ achieved?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 13:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87y1ickqsk.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #172319 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> The releases page for Github Lua, for version 5.4.6, has these two assets:
>
> * Source code: v5.4.6.zip
>
> * Source code: v5.4.6.tar.gz
>
> TELL me where in the build instructions it says that the contents of
> these two files are incompatible.
It doesn't, because their contents are identical. I just checked.
They differ from the lua-5.4.6.tar.gz file on the lua.org website.
https://github.com/lua/lua/archive/refs/tags/v5.4.6.zip
https://github.com/lua/lua/archive/refs/tags/v5.4.6.tar.gz
https://www.lua.org/ftp/lua-5.4.6.tar.gz
The release files on github.com are copies of the git repo. The
lua-5.4.6.tar.gz was *generated* from the files in the git repo.
It's created by the Lua maintainers; I don't know how.
The tarball on the lua.org web site is the one you should use to build
Lua from source. (If you want to work on developing Lua itself, you
should clone the repo. I'm not convinced that the GitHub release files
are particularly useful.)
> THEN then tell me why they are incompatible, and what the point is of
> the .zip version since it has a missing outer makefile.
>
> NOW tell me why on earth someone would know, or even guess, that the
> source bundles contained in those files are anything other than the
> same data, packaged in different types of containers.
That's exactly what they are, but they differ from the tar.gz file from
lua.org.
People who want to build Lua from source (without necessarily wanting to
work on the Lua implementation) should build from the .tar.gz file from
lua.org.
[...]
> You know, one thing is going 100% certain in this thread: you are
> never for one minute going to admit that I'm right in there being
> something wrong with those Github ZIPs.
>
> You didn't see the problem because you either obtained the source
> bundle elsewhere, or would have used only the .tar.gz version.
>
> So, fuck you as well as Scott. This clearly is a personal vendetta.
Dude, calm down. Scott likely wasn't aware of the GitHub release files.
The presence of those files is genuinely confusing, but that's not
Scott's fault.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 23:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ubgpip$2vk5e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172319 |
On 15/08/2023 19:49, Bart wrote: > You know, one thing is going 100% certain in this thread: you are never > for one minute going to admit that I'm right in there being something > wrong with those Github ZIPs. > > You didn't see the problem because you either obtained the source bundle > elsewhere, or would have used only the .tar.gz version. > Look, I have no idea if these are the same or different. I don't know, and don't care. The only reason I was at the lua website at all was because /you/ picked it as something that "proves" that make never works on Windows. I went to the lua website, followed the instructions on how to build lua on Windows, and it worked - using "make". /You/ did not not follow the instructions, and you got in trouble. No doubt you'd have got in trouble even if you did follow the instructions, because you are always so determined to have everything fail. I am not going to look at the zip files, or compare them, and I am certainly not going to spend any more effort trying to help you figure out what you did wrong. > You hate me so much that whenever I find a problem anywhere, it > automatically has to be my fault, even when it isn't! I don't hate you at all - if I did, then I would not have been wasting so much time trying to help you. > > And you're so intent on proving me wrong, that you even delude yourself > that doing this: > > curl -R -O http://www.lua.org/ftp/lua-5.4.6.tar.gz > tar zxf lua-5.4.6.tar.gz > cd lua-5.4.6 > make all test > > is 'installing it on Windows'. It /is/ installing it on Windows. > And when challenged, you say that doing > it under MSYS2 is also 'installing it on Windows'. I have msys2 installed. On Windows. I used tools from that (including make) to build Lua. On Windows. It resulted in Windows exe files for Lua. They are on my Windows machine. I can now run lua on Windows. (This is Windows 7, with no WSL in sight, no virtual machines, or anything like that.) I can copy these exe files to another windows machine, and they work there too. How is that /not/ "installing it on windows" ? What is your criteria here - if it works for someone else, then they must naturally have been cheating in some way, because it could not possibly be that /you/ have the problem? > > You know, I don't believe you actually know how to do this under plain > Windows! Otherwise you would have done so; you must know that's what I > use.) > By /my/ ruling, any system with "bcc" or "tcc" is not plain Windows. Therefore you failed. Does that sound familiar? Any more goalposts you want to shuffle around and move to completely different pitches in another feeble attempt to look less pathetic? > > So, what have /you/ achieved? > I did exactly what you claimed was impossible - used "make" to build Lua on windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web