Replying to both Ian and the list - sent about 2018-09-14T1835Z.
On 09/14/2018 02:21 PM, Ian Bruene via devel wrote:
>
> (test)
>
> --
> /"In the end; what separates a Man, from a Slave? Money? Power? No. A
> Man Chooses, a Slave Obeys."/ -- Andrew Ryan
>
> /"Utopia cannot precede the Utopian.
This is a test message to the mailing list, to diagnose apparent failure
to deliver, etc.
It can safely be ignored.
- *John D. Bell*
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Gentlemen,
*Years* ago I used to use yacc, but I quit before bison became the
_de-facto_ standard. Thus, upon reading its man page I was surprised
and pleased to see the following command-line options available:
--debug
--report=THINGS
THINGS comes from the set of 'state', 'itemset',
I've not looked at the build system configuration *at all* closely
(perhaps a more accurate reading would be "at all"), but can't you just
configure it to not use the offending -W switch when analyzing/compiling
the parser's C code?
- *John D. Bell*
On 06/18/2018 04:37 PM, Eric S. Raymond v
Gentlemen,
This was sent to "cont...@ntpsec.org", and I thought it should end
up to your attention.
- JDB
Forwarded Message
Subject:[cont...@ntpsec.org] draft-ietf-ntp-ma and
draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp in NTPSec?
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 04:25:23 +
Gentlemen,
A thought from out of left field here -
Would it be possible to simplify the code by using a tool to
partially pre-process the code (e.g. CPPP
(http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/cppp.html)), defining in
turn HAVE_KERNEL_PPS and HAVE_PPSAPI, and then comparing the r
On 11/07/2017 11:01 PM, Eric S. Raymond via devel wrote:
> The problem is that the hard parts of language translation really need a
> parser making an AST (Augmented Syntax Tree), then a transformation on the
> AST generating a report in the target syntax. That's what you hit in the
> last 15% - i
On 11/04/2017 07:59 PM, Eric S. Raymond via devel wrote:
> Here's my big question about the next year of development: should we
> be moving the codebase out of C to Go?
>
> I think the project is feasible and the potential gains are large, but
> I don't want to start anything without being sure o
Sorry I missed the meeting. I understand why distro maintainers
wouldn't want pre-1.0 code. I thought that you would release 1.0 both
as the usual source repo _and_ with "example" packages. I would expect
that the maintainers might well repackage to suit their tastes.
On 08/07/2017 03:59 PM,
I thought that one necessity before 1.0 were at least preliminary
"packaged" version for the major distros - i.e., .deb and .rpm files,
conformant to the conventions (file locations, etc.) of the systems that
used them.
Am I wrong? If not, do you know what the status of these are?
On 08/07/201
Gentlemen - I got this via "cont...@ntpsec.org". Don't have the nsec
right now to figure out if his is a lost cause or not - JDB
Forwarded Message
Subject:[cont...@ntpsec.org] Uputronics Ublox GPS v3.2b (c) 2016 &
Additional Raspberry Pi revision detection info.
11 matches
Mail list logo
