On 7/29/06, David R. Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 29, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Lars Rosengreen wrote:
This package (64bit version of openmcl) doesn't create any libraries,
but there is an executable and lisp heap image, both 64bit, and both
specific to 64bit powerpc processors. Hmm
The Package field is sbcl for both packages. You need an
Architecture field for each one, and the names of the files should be
sbcl-powerpc.info and sbcl-i386.info.
ok, thanks!
On a sort of related note, another common lisp implementation I
maintain now has a 64bit G5 specific version
On Jul 29, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Lars Rosengreen wrote:
On a sort of related note, another common lisp implementation I
maintain now has a 64bit G5 specific version in addition to the
original generic powerpc version. What can I do to ensure that
only
someone with a G5 installs the G5
Please excuse me for continuing a discussion that is several months
old, but I am still not sure about a few things.
On 1/11/06, David R. Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 10, 2006, at 10:05 PM, Lars Rosengreen wrote:
On 1/10/06, David R. Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan
On Jan 10, 2006, at 10:05 PM, Lars Rosengreen wrote:
On 1/10/06, David R. Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 6, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Asko Kauppi wrote:
I have a package for Fink that is completely CPU ignorant; how
should I mark it such in the .info file?
That's the default behavior;
I have a package for Fink that is completely CPU ignorant; how should
I mark it such in the .info file?
Also, what is the generic approach taken towards PowerPC/Intel issue,
which now gets more concrete.
I found no notion at:
http://fink.sourceforge.net/doc/packaging/reference.php?
On Jan 6, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Asko Kauppi wrote:
I have a package for Fink that is completely CPU ignorant; how
should I mark it such in the .info file?
That's the default behavior; no need to mark anything.
Also, what is the generic approach taken towards PowerPC/Intel
issue, which
