Hi
Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Santiago Would there be any objection to including the content of
Santiago debian-emacs-policy.gz into the policy itself, instead of
Santiago this reference?
The idea is that while sub policy documents are being
hammered out,
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
severity 29522 wishlist
Bug#29522: diversions
Severity set to `wishlist'.
retitle 29522 [PROPOSED]: clarification needed about diversions
Bug#29522: diversions
Changed bug title.
retitle 19179 [PROPOSED]: Shared Libraries clarification (ls -f)
AFAIK we tell developers to use cc, not gcc to compile programs. But
in 4.1 the policy insists on using gcc. So it's not easy to compile
all packages automatically with another compiler (like egcc).
On Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 13:00:58 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
AFAIK we tell developers to use cc, not gcc to compile programs. But in
4.1 the policy insists on using gcc. So it's not easy to compile all
packages automatically with another compiler (like egcc).
I think we have two goals here:
-
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is the emacsen sub policy sufficiently stabilized that it can
become a bona fide policy document, and thus get greater exposure?
We've got, what, at least ten or twelve packages using it. I'd say
that if it's not stabilized, we have a
On Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 09:36:27 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
[standard build environment]
I think that's a bogus argument; a broken gcc in /usr/local/bin would
cause the same problem.
A broken gcc in /usr/local/bin caused the libc6 problem.
A standard build environment would therefore not have
On Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 16:25:09 +0100, Anders Hammarquist wrote:
I think we have two goals here:
- Make the developers use gcc for building C code in packages. [*]
This is IMHO not a good idea. On the alpha architecture, gcc (at least
2.7.2.x) is broken, and all Debian packages in the
7 matches
Mail list logo
