On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:42:49AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Depends: libc6 (= 2.3.2.ds1-4), libgdbm3, libncurses5 (= 5.3.20030510-1), tcl8.4
(= 8.4.2), tk8.4 (= 8.4.2), xlibs ( 4.1.0)
This is a long standing issue for the ocaml package. We talked about it
in the past but IIRC we had
Once again, please don't CC me on reply.
Quoting Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
BTW, back in the days, ocaml-base was necessary for doing the stublibs
registration magic. This is no more so, so it could indeed be dropped.
But still, i don't know what you would gain by doing this, as i see
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:06:48AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Once again, please don't CC me on reply.
Erm, could you set your mail-follow-up to header correctly then ?
Quoting Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
BTW, back in the days, ocaml-base was necessary for doing the stublibs
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:02:03AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:42:49AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Depends: libc6 (= 2.3.2.ds1-4), libgdbm3, libncurses5 (= 5.3.20030510-1), tcl8.4
(= 8.4.2), tk8.4 (= 8.4.2), xlibs ( 4.1.0)
This is a long standing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 22:03:17 +0100
Source: mldonkey
Binary: mldonkey-gui mldonkey-server
Architecture: source powerpc
Version: 2.5.16-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Sylvain LE GALL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:55:02PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:29:35PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I think we should better have a naming convention for camlp4 syntax
estension instead of picking randon names. What about restating our
current libraries
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:55:02PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:29:35PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I think we should better have a naming convention for camlp4 syntax
estension instead of picking randon names. What
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:05:23PM +0100, Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sounds fine to me.
I've one problem with it : does camlp4 file are really library ? They
are mostly macro only needed at compile time... I prefer foo-camlp4
because of this.
Well, yes, they are library. The difference is that
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:24:58PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:05:23PM +0100, Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sounds fine to me.
I've one problem with it : does camlp4 file are really library ? They
are mostly macro only needed at compile time... I prefer foo-camlp4
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:42:49AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
as you might remember I'm rewriting debmirror in ocaml and currently I
wonder about the Depends I need.
If you compile to native code, the depends list will be a lot lower --
in fact, not having OCaml there at all.
Have you
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:38:04PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:55:02PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:29:35PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I think we should better have a naming convention for camlp4 syntax
estension instead of
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:52:56PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:12:54PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Have you considered that option?
No it is not an option.
Debian supports many architectures, not all of them supporting the
native code compiler.
Where does the
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:12:54PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:42:49AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
as you might remember I'm rewriting debmirror in ocaml and currently I
wonder about the Depends I need.
If you compile to native code, the depends list will
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:29:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:05:41PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Where does the native compiler not work, and why? I thought that it
just generated C code?
The native code compiler is a real compiler and produces true asm code,
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:34:42PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:29:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:05:41PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Where does the native compiler not work, and why? I thought that it
just generated C code?
The
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:05:41PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:52:56PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:12:54PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Have you considered that option?
No it is not an option.
Debian supports many architectures, not
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:47:53PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:34:42PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Also, ocamlc -custom code is no more binary: all, which cause
duplication of almost the same code in many packages, and a heavy burden
to those slower arches.
That 200K
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:34:42PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:29:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:05:41PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Where does the native compiler not work, and why? I thought that it
just generated C code?
The
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:46:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:34:42PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:29:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:05:41PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Where does the native compiler not work,
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:54:34PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:47:53PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:34:42PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Also, ocamlc -custom code is no more binary: all, which cause
duplication of almost the same code in many
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:51:15 -0600
Source: ocamlodbc
Binary: libocamlodbc-ocaml-bin libocamlodbc-ocaml-dev
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.7-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:27:12 -0600
Source: perl4caml
Binary: libperl4caml-ocaml libperl4caml-ocaml-doc libperl4caml-ocaml-dev
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 0.3.7-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: John Goerzen
Hello,
Well, since last week, i wait for svn.debian.org to be back online, to
ask the sponsoring of different package, i have made.
After time, ( and a pression of some user ) i decide not to commit and
do a release anyway, using my simple ftp archive.
So, is there some of you who can do an
Once again, please don't CC me on reply.
Quoting Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
BTW, back in the days, ocaml-base was necessary for doing the stublibs
registration magic. This is no more so, so it could indeed be dropped.
But still, i don't know what you would gain by doing this, as i see
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:06:48AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Once again, please don't CC me on reply.
Erm, could you set your mail-follow-up to header correctly then ?
Quoting Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
BTW, back in the days, ocaml-base was necessary for doing the stublibs
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:02:03AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:42:49AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Depends: libc6 (= 2.3.2.ds1-4), libgdbm3, libncurses5 (= 5.3.20030510-1),
tcl8.4 (= 8.4.2), tk8.4 (= 8.4.2), xlibs ( 4.1.0)
This is a long standing
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It could be done in common with the ocaml-toplevel split also we spoke
about.
This would mean the following distribution :
ocaml-base : Depends on ocaml-base-nox
ocaml-base-nox
ocaml-toplevel: depends on ocaml-base
ocaml : depends on
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 10:30:14AM +0100, Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It could be done in common with the ocaml-toplevel split also we spoke
about.
This would mean the following distribution :
ocaml-base :
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:29:35PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I think we should better have a naming convention for camlp4 syntax
estension instead of picking randon names. What about restating our
current libraries naming convention into something like libfoo-camlp4?
No other comments?
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:55:02PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:29:35PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I think we should better have a naming convention for camlp4 syntax
estension instead of picking randon names. What
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:05:23PM +0100, Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sounds fine to me.
I've one problem with it : does camlp4 file are really library ? They
are mostly macro only needed at compile time... I prefer foo-camlp4
because of this.
Well, yes, they are library. The difference is that
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:24:58PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:05:23PM +0100, Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sounds fine to me.
I've one problem with it : does camlp4 file are really library ? They
are mostly macro only needed at compile time... I prefer foo-camlp4
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:42:49AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
as you might remember I'm rewriting debmirror in ocaml and currently I
wonder about the Depends I need.
If you compile to native code, the depends list will be a lot lower --
in fact, not having OCaml there at all.
Have you
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:38:04PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:55:02PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:29:35PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I think we should better have a naming convention for camlp4 syntax
estension instead of
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:52:56PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:12:54PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Have you considered that option?
No it is not an option.
Debian supports many architectures, not all of them supporting the
native code compiler.
Where does the
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:12:54PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:42:49AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
as you might remember I'm rewriting debmirror in ocaml and currently I
wonder about the Depends I need.
If you compile to native code, the depends list will
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:29:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:05:41PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Where does the native compiler not work, and why? I thought that it
just generated C code?
The native code compiler is a real compiler and produces true asm code,
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:34:42PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:29:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:05:41PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Where does the native compiler not work, and why? I thought that it
just generated C code?
The
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:47:53PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:34:42PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Also, ocamlc -custom code is no more binary: all, which cause
duplication of almost the same code in many packages, and a heavy burden
to those slower arches.
That 200K
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:46:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:34:42PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:29:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:05:41PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Where does the native compiler not work,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:51:15 -0600
Source: ocamlodbc
Binary: libocamlodbc-ocaml-bin libocamlodbc-ocaml-dev
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.7-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:27:12 -0600
Source: perl4caml
Binary: libperl4caml-ocaml libperl4caml-ocaml-doc libperl4caml-ocaml-dev
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 0.3.7-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: John Goerzen
42 matches
Mail list logo
