Hi,
2010/9/9, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
The changelog for an earlier version mentions
- debian/control.in/source: Build-Depends on ocaml-nox (= 3.11.2),
ocaml-best-compilers | ocaml-nox, dh-ocaml (= 0.9.1).
which appears to have been lost in this version of the
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 08:13 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
2010/9/9, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
The changelog for an earlier version mentions
- debian/control.in/source: Build-Depends on ocaml-nox (= 3.11.2),
ocaml-best-compilers | ocaml-nox, dh-ocaml (= 0.9.1).
On Sun, August 29, 2010 22:10, Arthur Loiret wrote:
2010/8/24, Arthur Loiret aloi...@debian.org:
llvm-2.6 is on its way, and will be quite simple: no source changes
from the llvm package, just a few packaging bits.
There you go:
2010/8/24, Arthur Loiret aloi...@debian.org:
llvm-2.6 is on its way, and will be quite simple: no source changes
from the llvm package, just a few packaging bits.
There you go:
http://people.debian.org/~aloiret/squeeze/llvm/llvm-2.6_2.6-10.dsc
Le 29/08/2010 23:10, Arthur Loiret a écrit :
There you go:
http://people.debian.org/~aloiret/squeeze/llvm/llvm-2.6_2.6-10.dsc
http://people.debian.org/~aloiret/squeeze/llvm/llvm-2.6_2.6-10.debdiff
From the diff:
define libllvm-ocaml-dev_extra_binary
if test x$* = xlibllvm-ocaml-dev
2010/8/23, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
On Wed, August 18, 2010 11:50, Arthur Loiret wrote:
2010/8/18, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
This package still needs a bit of work, but not on this
side.
Ah, I'd assumed everything was basically ready to go and just waiting to
On Wed, August 18, 2010 11:50, Arthur Loiret wrote:
2010/8/18, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
This package still needs a bit of work, but not on this
side.
Ah, I'd assumed everything was basically ready to go and just waiting to
be uploaded. How much is a bit of work? One issue I
2010/8/18, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
As I said, my primary concern from a release point of view is whether
there are good reasons for doing the changes now, rather than waiting
for squeeze+1.
As Matthias said, the reason is to get the good llvm version installed
when users type
On Wed, August 18, 2010 11:50, Arthur Loiret wrote:
2010/8/18, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
As I said, my primary concern from a release point of view is whether
there are good reasons for doing the changes now, rather than waiting
for squeeze+1.
As Matthias said, the reason is
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 02:09 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
2010/8/16, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 22:21 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
2010/8/15, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 19:01 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
- Rename
On 18.08.2010 07:13, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 02:09 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
2010/8/16, Adam D. Barratta...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 22:21 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
2010/8/15, Adam D. Barratta...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 19:01
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 22:21 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
2010/8/15, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 19:01 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
- Rename the current llvm source package to llvm-2.6 and
replace binaries by versioned binaries. Thus, it is allowed to
2010/8/16, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 22:21 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
2010/8/15, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 19:01 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
- Rename the current llvm source package to llvm-2.6 and
replace
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 19:01 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
We would like to make llvm
2.7 (which is already used by clang and openjdk) the default version,
but some packages (ldc and python-llvm) still need llvm 2.6.
[...]
The things to do would be:
- Rename the current llvm source package to
2010/8/15, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 19:01 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
We would like to make llvm
2.7 (which is already used by clang and openjdk) the default version,
but some packages (ldc and python-llvm) still need llvm 2.6.
[...]
The things to do
Hi!
During the DebConf, Matthias Klose and I discussed about llvm in
Squeeze and took a few decisions, but the freeze has been announced
before I uploaded the corresponding work. We would like to make llvm
2.7 (which is already used by clang and openjdk) the default version,
but some packages
16 matches
Mail list logo
