Nikita Karetnikov skribis:
>> For Automake, I don’t think it makes sense, though. Or did you have
>> anything special in mind?
>
> Dependencies. For instance, you're updating Foo that requires Bar.
> (There is Bar-41 in the repo, but this version of Foo requires 42.
> Also, Bar-42 has some back
> For Automake, I don’t think it makes sense, though. Or did you have
> anything special in mind?
Dependencies. For instance, you're updating Foo that requires Bar.
(There is Bar-41 in the repo, but this version of Foo requires 42.
Also, Bar-42 has some backward incompatible changes.) If you up
Am Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> Right, it’s not independent of the autotools that were used.
> What I meant is that an autotools-generated tarball contains a build
> system whose sole requirement is a Bourne shell and a POSIX make.
Yes, you are right, sorry for my confusio
Andreas Enge skribis:
> Am Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> No: Autoconf/Automake/Libtool have the advantage of /not/ being
>> prerequisites for building packages that use them.
>
> You mean that the output of the autotools is independent of their version
> (assuming that a
Am Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> No: Autoconf/Automake/Libtool have the advantage of /not/ being
> prerequisites for building packages that use them.
You mean that the output of the autotools is independent of their version
(assuming that a recent enough version is used so
Andreas Enge skribis:
> Am Sonntag, 30. Dezember 2012 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> Andreas Enge skribis:
>> > A tiny update to core-updates.
>> It’s OK for master since it doesn’t trigger a rebuild of the core tools.
>
> That is surprising; should automake not be an implicit input for all
> pack
Am Sonntag, 30. Dezember 2012 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> Andreas Enge skribis:
> > A tiny update to core-updates.
> It’s OK for master since it doesn’t trigger a rebuild of the core tools.
That is surprising; should automake not be an implicit input for all
packages using the gnu build system?
Hi,
Nikita Karetnikov skribis:
> I'm probably missing something, but it seems to me that it's better to
> keep the old recipe instead of replacing it. So it will be possible to
> install different versions (just like with 'nix-env').
It makes sense in some cases, and not in others.
In general,
>> A tiny update to core-updates.
> It’s OK for master since it doesn’t trigger a rebuild of the core
> tools.
I'm probably missing something, but it seems to me that it's better to
keep the old recipe instead of replacing it. So it will be possible to
install different versions (just like with '
Andreas Enge skribis:
> A tiny update to core-updates.
It’s OK for master since it doesn’t trigger a rebuild of the core tools.
> From cc6fb8577e5e3dc8f52bc53a69249517e22c5576 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Andreas Enge
> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 00:25:18 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH 12/12] distro:
A tiny update to core-updates.
Andreas
From cc6fb8577e5e3dc8f52bc53a69249517e22c5576 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andreas Enge
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 00:25:18 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 12/12] distro: automake: Update to 1.12.6.
* distro/packages/autotools.scm (automake): Update to 1.12.6.
---
dis
11 matches
Mail list logo
