At Fri, 17 Oct 2014 17:56:51 +0200, David Bremner wrote:
Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu writes:
Meanwhile, I haven't answered your original question. Can you remind me
of the specific steps that I'd need to follow to try the script that
you sent before?
With your indulgence, I'll
At Fri, 17 Oct 2014 07:43:17 +0200, David Bremner wrote:
Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu writes:
That said, is there a particular reason that basing the build on the
git repo would be better?
One reason is that I need I need to track from release to release the
files that are
Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu writes:
Meanwhile, I haven't answered your original question. Can you remind me
of the specific steps that I'd need to follow to try the script that
you sent before?
With your indulgence, I'll just answer this part now. I have re-included
the Makefile as an
I've been been trying to rework the debian racket packaging, and to
understand the new racket build system. I need to have the two seperate
targets, which most of the package installation is done in the the
build-indep-stamp target.
The following makefile snippet is _almost_ working, except
Hi David,
If I understand correctly, you're trying to base the build on a
checkout of the Racket git repository. I think it's better to base it
on a release source distribution, instead:
* The source distribution embeds a reference to a release-specific
package catalog, which effectively
Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu writes:
That said, is there a particular reason that basing the build on the
git repo would be better?
One reason is that I need I need to track from release to release the
files that are removed from the racket source by debian for
licensing-related reasons.
6 matches
Mail list logo
