Hi David,
Debian has a package called debsigs for embedding GPG sigs into debs.
(I think the current version is 0.1.14, look for it in the admin
section. I haven't tried it out yet).
May be worth a look to see whether it can be adapted for fink before
starting anything from scratch.
Carsten
OK, sorry about the sloppy specification of my software versions.
OS 10.2.2 plus July + August dev tools and the Oct patch. I am well aware
of the August-only install problem, but it is not the case here. I'm
compiling other software all the time and it has all been working well.
For that matte
Instead of trying to pass the compiler make flag into make itself --
something that just about every planet on the package has a note in the
README of 'you can try parallel make if you want, but if it breaks,
turn it off'-- why not build packages in parallel, if the developer so
desires.
If a
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 08:06 AM, Scott W Mitchell wrote:
Latest OS X and dev tools, G4-400 with 512MB RAM, everything else
working
fine.
Define "latest dev tools". Such problems are usually caused by the user
installing the August tool update (small update app) on top of the 10.
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 05:15 AM, Chris Leishman wrote:
If developers really think that parallel compiling would be useful for
them, then there should be an option in fink to control it's usage.
I agree, and that was my original suggestion... when I brought it up on
IRC, it got nixed
I wrote :
> Good time to try and do an update-all I'm waiting after for a couple of
> weeks...
OK, my big compile lasted all night (things like expat an xfree :-) and
all went OK
I didn't see any bug so far.
--
Xavier
http://www.freetibet.org
http://www.tibet.fr/
--
Okay, my $0.02 as a user:
The model for this exists somewhat already--fink.config. Just as I add
the unstable trees, why can I not select ALL my global fink install
options in that file or even turn them on or off temporarily for a
particular install such as Qt or Kde3 if I know I am going away
I am behin Chrish Leishman on this, I must say (and I voiced this in the past).
Cheers,
Max
--
---
Max Horn
Software Developer
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
Chris Leishman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 03:56 AM, Ben Hines wrote:
>
> > Don't. Leave it as 10.2. There are NO binaries for 10.2 yet which is
> > why it is 404. Currently they are pointing at 10.1 binaries, many of
> > which will not even work.
> >
> > It w
Long time listener, infrequent poster...
Chris Leishman wrote:
However, this is all working on the assumption that totally saturating
the CPU is desired behavior. This is true on dedicated build machines,
but I would strongly suggest that it's NOT the case for the majority of
fink use
OK, after seeing others' posts, I ignored the checksum error and
proceeded, but on the first time around I got a seg fault while
building apt. On a second try, it compiled fine. So I think it
was a random glitch but am posting these results anyways in case they
mean more to someone else...
Late
> "Chris" == Chris Leishman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> I've noticed that a number of packages include -j2 or -j4 when running
Chris> make.
Besides being nearly useless on single-processor systems, this can
*break* some makefiles in untestable and unrepeatedable ways.
I recall when we
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 05:52 AM, Jeremy Erwin wrote:
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 09:36 PM, Chris Leishman wrote:
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 03:55 AM, Ben Hines wrote:
According to Jim Magee (i believe) on the apple list, in his
experience -j2 (I think he actually sugges
Hi,
what with gcc not being exactly speedy, and some of
these projects being quite large, is there any reason
why we default to -O3 when building many of these
packages? It seems to me -O does plenty well in the
common case, and its the common case we tend to worry
about most. Any comments or insi
14 matches
Mail list logo
