Steve McIntyre writes (Re: Guile language support in make):
Russ Allbery wrote:
I think building two separate binaries makes more sense than adding Guile
support by default for all the reasons you stated. We do similar things
with Emacs, which has a -nox version to avoid pulling in tons of X
Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Guile language support in make):
Well, I was thinking of build profiles for that.
(Lesson for me: read the whole thread first.)
I know I can't do that until Jess is released and dpkg 1.17.2 is
in stable.
Is it acceptable to put off providing
On Wed, 2014-05-14 at 13:20:32 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
(It's a shame that the dpkg developers didn't adopt my suggestion of
[ ] for build-profiles, because that would have been
backward-compatible with old tools.)
One of the reasons [0] it was not adopted was precisely because it is
not
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 01:16:05PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Steve McIntyre writes (Re: Guile language support in make):
Russ Allbery wrote:
I think building two separate binaries makes more sense than adding Guile
support by default for all the reasons you stated. We do similar things
On Wed, May 14 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
I know I can't do that until Jess is released and dpkg 1.17.2 is
in stable.
Is it acceptable to put off providing a guile-enabled make.deb until
jessie+1 ?
Talking to various people I was convinced I was overthinking
this, and as
+++ Manoj Srivastava [2014-05-10 23:00 -0700]:
#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign
On Sun, May 11 2014, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Thinking about the poor people trying to bootstrap things, I'm tempted
to suggest doing this as two separate source packages. Make is *so*
far down the bottom of
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Wookey wrote:
I'm not quite sure who actually controls these things
That would be the stable release team, the processes for uploads to
stable are documented here:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#upload-stable
--
bye,
pabs
On Sun, May 11 2014, Marco d'Itri wrote:
I do this for the inn2 package and it has worked well for years.
Another (much simpler) example is kmod, which build a deb and a udeb.
If ./configure is not buggy and works when called from a build directory
then building two binary packages from the
#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign
On Sun, May 11 2014, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Thinking about the poor people trying to bootstrap things, I'm tempted
to suggest doing this as two separate source packages. Make is *so*
far down the bottom of the stack that adding a dependency on another
language
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 06:38:15PM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I would like to solicit the opinion of the developers about the
value of adding Guile support to the default make package, at the
expense of two smallish additional dependencies.
On May 11, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@ieee.org wrote:
Building two binary packages from a single source seems hackish,
since make and make-guile would require ./configure to be run again,
and each target of the ./debin/rules might need cleanup/restart. Not
unsolvable, but messy,
Hi,
I have two constituencies here; people who would like to see
guile support in make, and to explore the new features. And people who
expect a sensibly small set of packages essential to building other
packages in Debin.
Without guile suport, make just depends on libc, and
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@ieee.org writes:
Building two binary packages from a single source seems hackish,
since make and make-guile would require ./configure to be run again,
and each target of the ./debin/rules might need cleanup/restart. Not
unsolvable, but messy, and I do not
Russ Allbery wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@ieee.org writes:
Building two binary packages from a single source seems hackish,
since make and make-guile would require ./configure to be run again,
and each target of the ./debin/rules might need cleanup/restart. Not
unsolvable, but
On Sun, 2014-05-11 at 03:28 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@ieee.org writes:
Building two binary packages from a single source seems hackish,
since make and make-guile would require ./configure to be run again,
and each target of the
Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com writes:
Thinking about the poor people trying to bootstrap things, I'm tempted
to suggest doing this as two separate source packages. Make is *so* far
down the bottom of the stack that adding a dependency on another
language could cause significant problems.
16 matches
Mail list logo
