Martin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
around compiling all the i386 stuff for the other archs. But nobody
goes around compiling the stuff from the other archs for i386! So if
I suddenly do all my package development on Alpha, the Alpha will
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
around compiling all the i386 stuff for the other archs. But
nobody goes around compiling the stuff from the other archs for
i386! So if I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
around compiling all the i386 stuff for the other archs. But
nobody goes around compiling
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
around compiling all the i386 stuff for the other archs. But nobody
goes around compiling the stuff from the other archs for i386! So if
I suddenly do all my package development on Alpha, the Alpha will have
the current versions, and perhaps the Sparc
Agreed. To think otherwise is silly.
As I am about to swith to Alpha, I have a conern: I maintain some
dozen or so packages, currently under i386. There are people that go
around compiling all the i386 stuff for the other archs. But nobody
goes around compiling the stuff from the other archs
At 12:30 +0200 1998-10-14, Paul Slootman wrote:
On Mon 12 Oct 1998, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
:-) debian/i386 is also a port!
No. For 90% (I think more) of the packages it is the primary architecture.
The word port implies carrying to _another_ architecture. Hence the
package on the primary
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 08:15:02AM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
At 12:30 +0200 1998-10-14, Paul Slootman wrote:
On Mon 12 Oct 1998, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
:-) debian/i386 is also a port!
No. For 90% (I think more) of the packages it is the primary architecture.
The word port implies
On Mon 12 Oct 1998, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
to increase communication betweenm the ports and between porters and
non-porters, I'd propose a new list:
debian-porting
or sim.
I fully support this proposal (The name debian-porting seems fine to me)
No, we haven't enough topics
to increase communication betweenm the ports and between porters and
non-porters, I'd propose a new list:
debian-porting
or sim.
I fully support this proposal (The name debian-porting seems fine to me)
No, we haven't enough topics for this new list.
IMHO, it makes sence to create
Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
to increase communication betweenm the ports and between porters and
non-porters, I'd propose a new list:
Much more important than a new list would be an archive reflecting
porting experiences and techniques developed during porting.
I'd be in favor
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
to increase communication betweenm the ports and between porters and
non-porters, I'd propose a new list:
debian-porting
alternative names:
debian-ports
debian-porter
debian-porters
or sim.
I fully support this proposal (The name
Hello,
to increase communication betweenm the ports and between porters and
non-porters, I'd propose a new list:
debian-porting
alternative names:
debian-ports
debian-porter
debian-porters
or sim.
Purpose of the list would be problems with porting to new architectures,
either package
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Purpose of the list would be problems with porting to new architectures,
either package specific or general. Problems with bootstrapping a new
architecture. Cross compilation of Debian packages. Maybe setting up some
documents or entries in the FAQ-O-MATIC.
Do you
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Do you think this list would be useful or that the already
existing lists can carry the load (namely debian-devel)?
This list is not needed and I don't consider it useful at all.
(As a porter) I disagree; I've often wanted
James Troup wrote:
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Do you think this list would be useful or that the already
existing lists can carry the load (namely debian-devel)?
This list is not needed and I don't consider it useful at all.
(As a porter)
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So you want to force all porters to join another list?
HTH does one force volunteers? No, I want the list to be available if
porters want to join it.
Why not contact them in their native lists?
Because these lists are for users too and mass
16 matches
Mail list logo
