Come on, the linux package systems are stupid and stupid systems can be
fooled. One can provide a fpc bootstrap package containing precompiled
assembler files which are assembled when built.
That's what I would recommend nvidia for years: provide their drivers as
assembler files. Nobody can proof
>
>> I would love to be a maintainer and build .deb files, however I do not
>> own a 64 bit CPU and can't afford one at the moment because it would
>> also mean a new motherboard and RAM too, so that crosses me out pretty
>> much. In fact, I really would love to see Free Pascal packages in the
>> U
Hello,
On 8/28/06, Rob van der Linde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thank you very much, I was waiting for the release of 2.0.4 so I could
compile .DEB packages for Ubuntu Dapper as I had previously compiled the
2.0.2 release for Ubuntu for people to download. I just found out that
there are now off
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 22:05 +0100, peter green wrote:
> the problem is that ubuntu has a general policy against binary uploads
> (because it ensures that the packages can indeed be built on systems
> other than the maintainers private system).
I think that this is the case for all distributions.
On 29 Aug 06, at 22:05, peter green wrote:
> > For the recursive build-dep. This is a onetime issue.
> This is making the rather uncertain assumption that each version
> can be built with the last (not true with all 1.9.x versions
> though maybe more effort is being made post 2.0.0).
FPC policy
Op Tue, 29 Aug 2006, schreef peter green:
>
> > For the recursive build-dep. This is a onetime issue.
> This is making the rather uncertain assumption that each version can be
> built with the last (not true with all 1.9.x versions though maybe more
> effort is being made post 2.0.0).
It i
> For the recursive build-dep. This is a onetime issue.
This is making the rather uncertain assumption that each version can be built
with the last (not true with all 1.9.x versions though maybe more effort is
being made post 2.0.0).
>The
> maintainer needs once to make
> a binary upload and
On 29 Aug 06, at 19:50, Stefan Kisdaroczi wrote:
> peter green schrieb:
.
.
> [1] The current issue:
> Until freepascal 2.0.4-rc3 the deb build worked as it should, but with the
> the final release is fails.
> The reason was the missing libgdb binary. So I downloaded it and it worked
> again, b
On 29 Aug 06, at 18:46, Rob van der Linde wrote:
.
.
> I would love to be a maintainer and build .deb files, however I do not
> own a 64 bit CPU and can't afford one at the moment because it would
> also mean a new motherboard and RAM too, so that crosses me out pretty
> much. In fact, I really w
Hi,
peter green schrieb:
>> I would love to be a maintainer and build .deb files, however I do not
>> own a 64 bit CPU and can't afford one at the moment because it would
>> also mean a new motherboard and RAM too, so that crosses me out pretty
>> much. In fact, I really would love to see Free Pas
> I would love to be a maintainer and build .deb files, however I do not
> own a 64 bit CPU and can't afford one at the moment because it would
> also mean a new motherboard and RAM too, so that crosses me out pretty
> much. In fact, I really would love to see Free Pascal packages in the
> Ubuntu
Stefan Kisdaroczi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Daniël Mantione wrote:
>> Op Tue, 29 Aug 2006, schreef Rob van der Linde:
>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> It would be nice to see 64 bit .DEB packages downloadable too, in the
>>> future maybe. I think .DEB packages are very important to support, since
>>> Ubuntu is now one
Hi,
Daniël Mantione wrote:
>
> Op Tue, 29 Aug 2006, schreef Rob van der Linde:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> It would be nice to see 64 bit .DEB packages downloadable too, in the
>> future maybe. I think .DEB packages are very important to support, since
>> Ubuntu is now one of the top Linux distros.
>
> .d
13 matches
Mail list logo
