Re: dropping sigc++

Yeah I was thinking the same thing...

How do the need for c++, sigc++, and autoconf relate at all?

And how would removing autoconf, and sigc++ be doing something useful with 
this project? What you're describing sounds a lot like yanking random crap 
out of a car hoping to make it better.

Regards,
James

On Monday 17 January 2005 7:45 am, Brandon Black wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:59:10 +0800, Rogelio Serrano
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Rogelio Serrano <[email protected]>
> > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:55:52 +0800
> > Subject: Re: [Y-devel] dropping sigc++
> > To: James Harr <[email protected]>
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:53:56 +0800, Rogelio Serrano
> >
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:47:46 -0600, James Harr <[email protected]> 
wrote:
> > > > I don't really see how this is possible, unless you want to drop the
> > > > C++ libraries. Because sigc++ is kind of the cornerstone of it...
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday 16 January 2005 11:18 pm, Rogelio Serrano wrote:
> > > > > Anybody has a plan to make sigc++ optional?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > James Harr <[email protected]>
> > > > http://www.grickle.org/
> > >
> > > I see.
> > >
> > > I doubt if c++ can be made optional either since autoconf requires
> > > c++. Its a bug I think but its not fixed yet.
> >
> > I will drop autoconf then.
> >
> > It looks like i can still do something useful with this project.
>
> What exactly is the point of dropping sigc++?  And this autoconf part
> of this thread makes no sense.  Removing autoconf from the project
> (why on earth would one do that?) would not obviate the need for
> sigc++.

-- 
James Harr <[email protected]>
http://www.grickle.org/