Regards,
Keith ____________ Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look at what they can do when they stick together.
On 09-Jun-06 Keith Watson wrote:
Regards,
Keith
Delightful! And it adds a new layer of meaning to "patch file" or even "segmentation fault".
Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 09-Jun-06 Time: 09:25:18 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 09:25 +0100, Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk wrote:
Delightful! And it adds a new layer of meaning to "patch file" or even "segmentation fault".
It is a lovely looking project but sadly quite buggy at the moment.
Firstly I am not familiar with this build process, the sourcecode and makefile seem to be combined and the configure step is actually just printing the document inside the tarball.
It sort of makes sense once you get your head around it, but the build process doesn't have enough logging to help solve problems along the way.
For example I did the configure stage (printed the document) and handed the output to my compiler (Girlfriend) shouting "make!" she just exited (the room) with a reply of "no!"
Now obviously it's some sort of resource or dependency problem...but how do I go about resolving it with such little debugging information.
Or is there a problem with the compiler I am using ?
On 9 Jun 2006, at 09:42, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 09:25 +0100, Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk wrote:
Delightful! And it adds a new layer of meaning to "patch file" or even "segmentation fault".
It is a lovely looking project but sadly quite buggy at the moment.
Firstly I am not familiar with this build process, the sourcecode and makefile seem to be combined and the configure step is actually just printing the document inside the tarball.
It sort of makes sense once you get your head around it, but the build process doesn't have enough logging to help solve problems along the way.
For example I did the configure stage (printed the document) and handed the output to my compiler (Girlfriend) shouting "make!" she just exited (the room) with a reply of "no!"
Now obviously it's some sort of resource or dependency problem...but how do I go about resolving it with such little debugging information.
Or is there a problem with the compiler I am using ?
I used configure --prefix=/home/mark and am just waiting, still not here yet though... :)
-Mark
I had a similar problem using different hardware (daughter), but found that making a small cash donation to the hardware maintainer (wife) seemed to take compilation to the next stage. I found the process runs very slowly though - still only about 1% complete after a couple of hours.
Stuart.
On Friday 09 Jun 2006 09:42, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 09:25 +0100, Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk wrote:
Delightful! And it adds a new layer of meaning to "patch file" or even "segmentation fault".
It is a lovely looking project but sadly quite buggy at the moment.
Firstly I am not familiar with this build process, the sourcecode and makefile seem to be combined and the configure step is actually just printing the document inside the tarball.
It sort of makes sense once you get your head around it, but the build process doesn't have enough logging to help solve problems along the way.
For example I did the configure stage (printed the document) and handed the output to my compiler (Girlfriend) shouting "make!" she just exited (the room) with a reply of "no!"
Now obviously it's some sort of resource or dependency problem...but how do I go about resolving it with such little debugging information.
Or is there a problem with the compiler I am using ?
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
-
Keith Watson -
Mandy Bailey -
Mark Ridley -
Ted.Harding＠nessie.mcc.ac.uk -
Wayne Stallwood