On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 02:01:55PM +0100, Edd Barrett wrote:
>
> > Below an updated diff for lang/rust (with docs). Please test it, I could
> > mess myself with the revert of -doc removal.
>
> Looks good. A couple of very small comments inline, but this is pretty
> much good to commit IMO.
>
>
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 04:50:02PM +0100, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> For now, the following trick seems to work: I added a link at configure
> stage in bootstrap directory to ${WRKDIR}/stage2/rustdoc. The link is
> dangled at beginning. But as docs are built after binaries, a working
> rustdoc
Hi,
Here a new diff for lang/rust with -doc subpackage.
The way it is done is different from edd@ proposal. Below the
explanation.
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 09:12:51PM +, Edd Barrett wrote:
>
> The diff I had been preparing today simply added back rustdoc into the
> bootstrap. rustdoc is
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 06:22:05PM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote:
> From what i understand, it's more work to keep rustdoc in the bootstrap
> so that we can generate the docs at package build time.
Well, time to cut my losses.
The diff I had been preparing today simply added back rustdoc into
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 08:28:53AM +0100, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:11:29PM +, Edd Barrett wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 02:43:58PM +0100, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 03:55:26PM +, Edd Barrett wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How about a
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:11:29PM +, Edd Barrett wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 02:43:58PM +0100, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 03:55:26PM +, Edd Barrett wrote:
> > >
> > > How about a separate port for docs that depends on lang/rust? Would that
> > > be more
Hi Sebastien,
Sorry this is dragging on a bit.
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 02:43:58PM +0100, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 03:55:26PM +, Edd Barrett wrote:
> >
> > How about a separate port for docs that depends on lang/rust? Would that
> > be more palatable?
>
> I assume it
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 03:55:26PM +, Edd Barrett wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 04:40:27PM +0100, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> > so the bootstrap archive will look like really a full package.
>
> How about a separate port for docs that depends on lang/rust? Would that
> be more palatable?
>
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 04:40:27PM +0100, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> so the bootstrap archive will look like really a full package.
How about a separate port for docs that depends on lang/rust? Would that
be more palatable?
--
Best Regards
Edd Barrett
http://www.theunixzoo.co.uk
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 03:03:11PM +, Edd Barrett wrote:
> As always, thanks for your hard work on Rust/OpenBSD.
>
> Looks good to me. A couple of comments inline.
Ah also, there's some trailing whitespace in the Makefile. We could kill
this with a separate commit.
--
Best Regards
Edd
Hi Sebastien,
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 03:34:52PM +0100, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> The following diff updates lang/rust to 1.16.0.
As always, thanks for your hard work on Rust/OpenBSD.
Looks good to me. A couple of comments inline.
> It merges -main and -doc, and doesn't provide documentation
11 matches
Mail list logo
