Hello, ...
Well, this will be a complex question, and the subject is not all that
speaking, i apologize for it...
I maintain the ocaml package, which is a language which can produce
bytecode executables to be run in a virtual machine (as java does) or
native code executables (well, the source
Hi,
Sven LUTHER:
Is there a way to handle this so that apt will get the native code
package if it is available, and resort to the bytecode one on arches not
supporting the native code compiler ? Some sort of priorities or
something such ?
I'd split the packages in three:
- ocaml
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Sven LUTHER:
Is there a way to handle this so that apt will get the native code
package if it is available, and resort to the bytecode one on arches not
supporting the native code compiler ? Some sort of priorities or
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
I'd split the packages in three:
- ocaml (arch-independent, common stuff)
- ocaml-bytecode (ditto, bytecode interpreter)
- ocaml-native (arch-dependent, compiles to native code)
You miss the point: the ocaml package is already
On 2.10.2002 19:28 Uhr, Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The i in front of the comma.
Simon
Thanks. Do you have an idea why my Debian still wants to install
apache-common when I make apt-get install php4?
My control file is now (sorry the last one was the old one):
Source:
Hi,
Stefano Zacchiroli:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
I'd split the packages in three:
- ocaml (arch-independent, common stuff)
- ocaml-bytecode (ditto, bytecode interpreter)
- ocaml-native (arch-dependent, compiles to native code)
You miss the
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 12:23:41PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Stefano Zacchiroli:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
I'd split the packages in three:
- ocaml (arch-independent, common stuff)
- ocaml-bytecode (ditto, bytecode interpreter)
-
Hi,
Sven Luther:
In case i submit a patch or something such, should i discuss things
first, or just go ahead and implement it ?
Probably talk about it first... though frankly I don't see a different way
of implementing what you want, and the feature would be nice. (I got
bitten by it
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 01:20:34PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Sven Luther:
In case i submit a patch or something such, should i discuss things
first, or just go ahead and implement it ?
Probably talk about it first... though frankly I don't see a different way
of implementing
On Fre, 2002-10-04 at 10:09, Sven LUTHER wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Sven LUTHER:
Is there a way to handle this so that apt will get the native code
package if it is available, and resort to the bytecode one on arches not
supporting the
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 01:44:50PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
On Fre, 2002-10-04 at 10:09, Sven LUTHER wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Sven LUTHER:
Is there a way to handle this so that apt will get the native code
package if it is
Zeno Davatz (2002-10-04 11:13:59 +0200) :
On 2.10.2002 19:28 Uhr, Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The i in front of the comma.
Simon
Thanks. Do you have an idea why my Debian still wants to install
apache-common when I make apt-get install php4?
Maybe because php4 depends on a
Sven LUTHER wrote:
Since the bytecode executables are arch independent, i think it would be
nice to build them arch: all, since this would mean, apart from smaller
sized packages, also that we don't have 12+ version of the same thing in
the archive (well, at least we can spare all the arches
En réponse à Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sven LUTHER wrote:
Since the bytecode executables are arch independent, i think it would
be
nice to build them arch: all, since this would mean, apart from
smaller
sized packages, also that we don't have 12+ version of the same thing
in
the
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 06:17:32PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.10.03.0013 +0200]:
Please could someone sponsor an upload of IJS?
Please give me exact information what this does. I'd be happy to
sponsor you if I know more and if I know about
This one time, at band camp, Michel Dänzer said:
On Don, 2002-10-03 at 20:09, Stephen Gran wrote:
In my control file, I just use ${shlibs:Depends} in the Depends: field.
After building (in a Woody chroot, thanks to pbuilder - great tool!) I
get a Depends: that looks like this:
also sprach Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.10.04.2051 +0200]:
In case you don't mind, I'm about upload IJS later today. If you want to
take over, go ahead.
All yours.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; net@madduck
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 11:25:55AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Sven LUTHER wrote:
Since the bytecode executables are arch independent, i think it would be
nice to build them arch: all, since this would mean, apart from smaller
sized packages, also that we don't have 12+ version of the same
Scott, are you still out there? On 6-17 you said you could sign my key,
and I've tried to get in touch with you twice since then.
Otherwise, I'm still looking for an existing developer to sign my key,
in the Minneapolis area, near the UMN campus. I don't have a car and
can't drive anyway, so it
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
also sprach Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.10.03.0013 +0200]:
Please could someone sponsor an upload of IJS?
Please give me exact information what this does. I'd be happy to
sponsor you if I know more and if I know about the general topic
Sven LUTHER wrote:
Well, what about the coq for example, which is 7 MB package (on i386, so
maybe it is bigger for other arches) and 20MB installed.
I guess it's on the line.
There is also the buildd resources, especially on the slower
arches. I guess it takes much time to build coq on m68k
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] immo vero scripsit:
No, that was actually quite helpful. I am chasing this around because
someone who wrote me offlist suggested that it actually depended on more
libraries than I had listed. I checked with objdump, and it agrees with
the generated field (as
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 07:38:05PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Sven LUTHER wrote:
Well, what about the coq for example, which is 7 MB package (on i386, so
maybe it is bigger for other arches) and 20MB installed.
I guess it's on the line.
I thought so, But sure, this is the biggest project
On 2.10.2002 19:28 Uhr, Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The i in front of the comma.
Simon
Thanks. Do you have an idea why my Debian still wants to install
apache-common when I make apt-get install php4?
My control file is now:
Source: apache-ssl-ywesee
Section: web
Priority:
Hello, ...
Well, this will be a complex question, and the subject is not all that
speaking, i apologize for it...
I maintain the ocaml package, which is a language which can produce
bytecode executables to be run in a virtual machine (as java does) or
native code executables (well, the source is
Hi,
Sven LUTHER:
Is there a way to handle this so that apt will get the native code
package if it is available, and resort to the bytecode one on arches not
supporting the native code compiler ? Some sort of priorities or
something such ?
I'd split the packages in three:
- ocaml
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Sven LUTHER:
Is there a way to handle this so that apt will get the native code
package if it is available, and resort to the bytecode one on arches not
supporting the native code compiler ? Some sort of priorities or
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
I'd split the packages in three:
- ocaml (arch-independent, common stuff)
- ocaml-bytecode (ditto, bytecode interpreter)
- ocaml-native (arch-dependent, compiles to native code)
You miss the point: the ocaml package is already
On 2.10.2002 19:28 Uhr, Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The i in front of the comma.
Simon
Thanks. Do you have an idea why my Debian still wants to install
apache-common when I make apt-get install php4?
My control file is now (sorry the last one was the old one):
Source:
Hi,
Stefano Zacchiroli:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
I'd split the packages in three:
- ocaml (arch-independent, common stuff)
- ocaml-bytecode (ditto, bytecode interpreter)
- ocaml-native (arch-dependent, compiles to native code)
You miss the
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 12:23:41PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Stefano Zacchiroli:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
I'd split the packages in three:
- ocaml (arch-independent, common stuff)
- ocaml-bytecode (ditto, bytecode interpreter)
-
Hi,
Sven Luther:
In case i submit a patch or something such, should i discuss things
first, or just go ahead and implement it ?
Probably talk about it first... though frankly I don't see a different way
of implementing what you want, and the feature would be nice. (I got
bitten by it
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 01:20:34PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Sven Luther:
In case i submit a patch or something such, should i discuss things
first, or just go ahead and implement it ?
Probably talk about it first... though frankly I don't see a different way
of implementing
On Fre, 2002-10-04 at 10:09, Sven LUTHER wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Sven LUTHER:
Is there a way to handle this so that apt will get the native code
package if it is available, and resort to the bytecode one on arches not
supporting the
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 01:44:50PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
On Fre, 2002-10-04 at 10:09, Sven LUTHER wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Sven LUTHER:
Is there a way to handle this so that apt will get the native code
package if it is
Zeno Davatz (2002-10-04 11:13:59 +0200) :
On 2.10.2002 19:28 Uhr, Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The i in front of the comma.
Simon
Thanks. Do you have an idea why my Debian still wants to install
apache-common when I make apt-get install php4?
Maybe because php4 depends on a
Sven LUTHER wrote:
Since the bytecode executables are arch independent, i think it would be
nice to build them arch: all, since this would mean, apart from smaller
sized packages, also that we don't have 12+ version of the same thing in
the archive (well, at least we can spare all the arches
En réponse à Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sven LUTHER wrote:
Since the bytecode executables are arch independent, i think it would
be
nice to build them arch: all, since this would mean, apart from
smaller
sized packages, also that we don't have 12+ version of the same thing
in
the
also sprach Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.10.03.0013 +0200]:
Please could someone sponsor an upload of IJS?
Please give me exact information what this does. I'd be happy to
sponsor you if I know more and if I know about the general topic that
this library deals with.
--
martin;
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 06:17:32PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.10.03.0013 +0200]:
Please could someone sponsor an upload of IJS?
Please give me exact information what this does. I'd be happy to
sponsor you if I know more and if I know about
This one time, at band camp, Michel Dänzer said:
On Don, 2002-10-03 at 20:09, Stephen Gran wrote:
In my control file, I just use ${shlibs:Depends} in the Depends: field.
After building (in a Woody chroot, thanks to pbuilder - great tool!) I
get a Depends: that looks like this:
also sprach Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.10.04.2051 +0200]:
In case you don't mind, I'm about upload IJS later today. If you want to
take over, go ahead.
All yours.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 11:25:55AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Sven LUTHER wrote:
Since the bytecode executables are arch independent, i think it would be
nice to build them arch: all, since this would mean, apart from smaller
sized packages, also that we don't have 12+ version of the same
Scott, are you still out there? On 6-17 you said you could sign my key,
and I've tried to get in touch with you twice since then.
Otherwise, I'm still looking for an existing developer to sign my key,
in the Minneapolis area, near the UMN campus. I don't have a car and
can't drive anyway, so it
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
also sprach Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.10.03.0013 +0200]:
Please could someone sponsor an upload of IJS?
Please give me exact information what this does. I'd be happy to
sponsor you if I know more and if I know about the general topic that
45 matches
Mail list logo
