On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 12:24:55AM -0500, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Hi,
Jack, I am sure that Jean-Francois was trying to be helpful, and was doing a
task that I basically asked him to do, as I did not feel that I had the time
for it. I do however understand your reaction, you have good reason
Actually it appears that my last round of packaging on...
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=2992713group_id=17203atid=414256
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=2994489group_id=17203atid=414256
works as intended and the info files are avialable when the main
gcc4X
Am 03.05.2010 um 02:27 schrieb Jack Howarth:
[...]
Max,
Okay. I read them out of order then. At first I was uncertain from the
message
in the gcc44-4.4.4-1000 entry, but coupled with the interest in maintainership
shown in the message in the gcc45-4.5.0-1000 and the impact of your
Max,
Considering that I was only accused of not notifying
other maintainers on commits rather than any error in
packaging, I find your demand that I go through a full
review process (satisfying all developers involved) to
be extremely high-handed. This weekend I wasted a complete
day on the
Max,
As to technical discussions, please review the
proposed refactoring of gcc4x...
-
One small additional comment, sorry ..
Going for such a structure, it helps a lot
(to speed up upgrading by users and other
pkgs) if the main pkg (the symlinks)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/3/10 8:02 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
...you exempted yourself from that process.
Max's header on his info files exists because of people changing his
packages *in fink CVS* without his permission, and without notification,
which is what you did to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I should have added the architectures: It doesn't build on 10.5/i386
and 10.5/powerpc as well as 10.6/x86_64. The same version-revison _did_
build prior to the last update to GTK+2.
On 4/25/10 5:47 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
It's broken on 10.5
Benjamin,
I don't object to a review process but simply an
endless one (where I am treated as novice packager
without the recourse of calling enough, commit
when the package meets the basic requirements).
Otherwise, I am held hostage to the whims of whichever
reviewer I pull and am really no
On 05/01/2010 9:22 AM, David R. Morrison wrote:
1) Should packages marked as Restrictive be able to check mirrors if
they can't find the source upstream?
If the sources are legally redistributable and therefore mirror-able,
that sounds reasonable.
There are definitely cases in which no
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 08:20:25AM -0400, Hanspeter Niederstrasser wrote:
On 05/01/2010 9:22 AM, David R. Morrison wrote:
1) Should packages marked as Restrictive be able to check mirrors if
they can't find the source upstream?
If the sources are legally redistributable and therefore
Jack,
this is ridiculous. First off, nobody holds you hostage to anything. And that
you call JF's well thought and politely formulated questions, suggestions and
objections whims is simply inflammatory and insulting. Let's try to scaled
down on the ad-hominem attacks, too, OK?
Discussion and
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 05:11:32PM +0200, Max Horn wrote:
Jack,
this is ridiculous. First off, nobody holds you hostage to anything. And that
you call JF's well thought and politely formulated questions, suggestions and
objections whims is simply inflammatory and insulting. Let's try to
Okay. Let's do this in a democratic fashion. We
can have a poll on JF's proposed approach to create
a gcc split-off among the fink developers who are
BuildDepends on the gcc4x packages in theirs. The
proposal is...
-
other pkgs : I gave you in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/3/10 12:12 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Okay. Let's do this in a democratic fashion. We
can have a poll on JF's proposed approach to create
a gcc split-off among the fink developers who are
BuildDepends on the gcc4x packages in theirs. The
I think there is a fatal flaw with the concept of
having every gcc4x package contain a gcc split-off
such that the newest available FSF gcc is always used.
The packages that BuildDepends on gcc must also Depends
on a particular gcc4x-shlibs. How exactly will fink
dynamically update the Depends
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/3/10 1:12 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
I think there is a fatal flaw with the concept of
having every gcc4x package contain a gcc split-off
such that the newest available FSF gcc is always used.
The packages that BuildDepends on gcc must also
The suggestion itself was missing in Jack's message.
It was that the pkg containing the
symlinks in %p/bin could, for future gcc4X pkgs,
be just called gcc.
Existing fink pkgs would obviously not be affected,
since all their deps and bdeps involve gcc4X.
The suggestion does have the slight
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/3/10 1:38 PM, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
The suggestion itself was missing in Jack's message.
It was that the pkg containing the
symlinks in %p/bin could, for future gcc4X pkgs,
be just called gcc.
Existing fink pkgs would obviously
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 01:31:31PM -0400, Alexander Hansen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/3/10 1:12 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
I think there is a fatal flaw with the concept of
having every gcc4x package contain a gcc split-off
such that the newest available
On 03 May 2010, at 19:46, Alexander Hansen wrote:
OK, that's clearer to me.
The situation would be more like 'python', then, where normally
packages
depend on a particular 'pythonM' version, and only depend on
'python' if
the version doesn't matter? We'd normally _not_ have a
On 03 May 2010, at 19:51, Jack Howarth wrote:
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 01:31:31PM -0400, Alexander Hansen wrote:
So for packages where none of the libraries from FSF gcc get linked,
perhaps a BuildDepends on 'gcc' would be OK.
This wlll likely never be the case. For gcc44 and earlier, any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/3/10 2:06 PM, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
On 03 May 2010, at 19:51, Jack Howarth wrote:
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 01:31:31PM -0400, Alexander Hansen wrote:
So for packages where none of the libraries from FSF gcc get linked,
perhaps a
On 03 May 2010, at 20:10, Alexander Hansen wrote:
Peter reminded me on IRC that the original motivation behind having a
'gcc' package was to provide a current FSF compiler at runtime for
packages that needed an FSF compiler tool but didn't care what version
it was. That's different than
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 08:22:55PM +0200, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
On 03 May 2010, at 20:10, Alexander Hansen wrote:
Peter reminded me on IRC that the original motivation behind having a
'gcc' package was to provide a current FSF compiler at runtime for
packages that needed an FSF
JF,
One other comment. I certainly would avoid
suggesting that anyone play games with effective
linkage order out of FSF gcc. For gcc 4.6 in
particular, we are going to run up against a
slew of dsymutil bugs that Iain Sandoe is
working around by carefully crafted linkage
order changes. While I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/3/10 2:45 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 08:22:55PM +0200, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
On 03 May 2010, at 20:10, Alexander Hansen wrote:
Peter reminded me on IRC that the original motivation behind having a
'gcc' package
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 03:04:34PM -0400, Alexander Hansen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/3/10 2:45 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 08:22:55PM +0200, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
On 03 May 2010, at 20:10, Alexander Hansen wrote:
Peter
Alexander,
I should point out that my aims in refactoring
gcc4x for gcc44-4.4.4-1000 and gcc45-4.5.0-1001
were very modest. There has been presistent requests
for the creation of co-existing (ie functional)
compiler packages for gcc4x. I also needed this for
the dragonegg-gcc compiler plugin
Alexander Hansen alexanderk.han...@gmail.com said:
I should have added the architectures: It doesn't build on 10.5/i386
and 10.5/powerpc as well as 10.6/x86_64. The same version-revison _did_
build prior to the last update to GTK+2.
On 4/25/10 5:47 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
It's broken
29 matches
Mail list logo
