Python does seem a very poor choice for this kind of application, given
the traditional bloat of a python installation, but I suppose they've
made their decision...
-Miles
--
"... The revolution will be no re-run brothers; The revolution will be live."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 07:06:05PM +1030, Ron wrote:
> > You've already said you don't have the space for GDB+Python. So file
> > a wishlist bug to split gdbserver out to its own package, and I'll do
> > that for you happily.
>
> I haven't seen anyone object to that idea yet, so we seem to have a
Ok, let's see ...
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 06:18:18PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 03:30:20AM +1030, Ron wrote:
> > I do appreciate, and share, your concern for not bloating the archive
> > needlessly, but my concern is balancing that against the needs of small
> > Deb
Picking some arbitrary messages in this thread to respond to.
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 03:30:20AM +1030, Ron wrote:
> I do appreciate, and share, your concern for not bloating the archive
> needlessly, but my concern is balancing that against the needs of small
> Debian systems, where the extra dep
#include
* Ben Hutchings [Sun, Dec 20 2009, 02:26:53AM]:
> On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 11:17 +1030, Ron wrote:
> [...]
> > I don't understand the pushback I'm getting on this. The bloat that was
> > already added _far_ outweighs the little extra it needs to fix it, and
> > that's before we save on prun
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 02:26:53AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 11:17 +1030, Ron wrote:
> [...]
> > I don't understand the pushback I'm getting on this. The bloat that was
> > already added _far_ outweighs the little extra it needs to fix it, and
> > that's before we save on
Ben:
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 11:17 +1030, Ron wrote:
> [...]
>> I don't understand the pushback I'm getting on this. The bloat that was
>> already added _far_ outweighs the little extra it needs to fix it, and
>> that's before we save on prun
On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 11:17 +1030, Ron wrote:
[...]
> I don't understand the pushback I'm getting on this. The bloat that was
> already added _far_ outweighs the little extra it needs to fix it, and
> that's before we save on pruning away libgdb. I don't think I'd be going
> out on a limb to sugg
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:15:14PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 08:25 +1030, Ron wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 08:12:44PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > Why would you install gdb on a (non-development) system, rather than a
> > > gdb stub?
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing s
On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 08:25 +1030, Ron wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 08:12:44PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Why would you install gdb on a (non-development) system, rather than a
> > gdb stub?
>
> Maybe I'm missing something cool and obvious here, but in the particular
> case this came to m
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 08:12:44PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Why would you install gdb on a (non-development) system, rather than a
> gdb stub?
Maybe I'm missing something cool and obvious here, but in the particular
case this came to my attention: simplicity?
The device is amply endowed enou
On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 03:30 +1030, Ron wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 09:34:53PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > tags 560786 + wontfix
> > thanks
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 08:22:12PM +1030, Ron wrote:
> > > Not all machines that it's useful to be able to run gdb on
> >
Hi Daniel,
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 09:34:53PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> tags 560786 + wontfix
> thanks
>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 08:22:12PM +1030, Ron wrote:
> > Not all machines that it's useful to be able to run gdb on
> > also need or want python installed. Can we please make this
13 matches
Mail list logo
