Re: [task #5723] Investigate flick

flick is unfortunately dead, and would be more ambitious to pick up and improve than is mig, ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd

[bug #15329] exec doesn't like zip'ed binaries

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #15329 (project hurd): Did Andrew's patch not get committed? If so, can this bug be closed? If not, can it be committed? Thanks! ___ Reply to this item at:

[task #5723] Investigate flick

Follow-up Comment #1, task #5723 (project hurd): I have done some research and talked to a few people (including Jeff Bailey) and as far as I can find out Flick is slower and even less maintained than MiG so I'm not sure what this would buy us? Thanks. Barry ___

Re: Moving `migcom' out of `[exec_prefix]/libexec/'

Using gcc driver with a custom specs file is probably not really hard. ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd

Re: Moving `migcom' out of `[exec_prefix]/libexec/'

On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 04:08:38PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote: > The idea that you want to run migcom is what's a workaround. Hm. Then I see two possibilities: a) implement handling for a number of GCC's command line arguments into the `mig' shell script or b) somehow make `migcom' work as a rea

Re: Moving `migcom' out of `[exec_prefix]/libexec/'

The idea that you want to run migcom is what's a workaround. ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd

Re: Moving `migcom' out of `[exec_prefix]/libexec/'

Hello! On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 01:31:34PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote: > I am skeptical that's a good idea. Why? > Why not just add switches as desired to the script to provide a simpler > way to run it? e.g. mig --raw or suchlike. Hm. That seems a bit like a workaround to me. There are a lo

Re: Moving `migcom' out of `[exec_prefix]/libexec/'

Barry deFreese wrote: > Constantine, I'm speaking out of my ass as usual but I assume he suggested Ben because we would prefer using argp and Ben is the argp master. But what you have looks reasonable. Barry, this is the kind of sincerety i like in a man. Thank you for your explanation.

sourceware.org glibc Bugzilla tracker

Hello Daniel! Forwarding this to you on request of Roland McGrath. In short, we'd like to have each item in the sourceware.org glibc Bugzilla tracker that is filed with ``Component'' equaling ``hurd'' to get by default a cc to added. Is that possible to do? - Forwarded message from Rolan

Re: Moving `migcom' out of `[exec_prefix]/libexec/'

Constantine Kousoulos wrote: Thomas Schwinge wrote: Hello! In the GNU MIG package, I'd like to move the `migcom' program out of `[exec_prefix]/libexec/' (which is where is currently is being installed) and install it alongside the `mig' program into `[exec_prefix]/bin/' for being able to use

Re: Moving `migcom' out of `[exec_prefix]/libexec/'

I am skeptical that's a good idea. Why not just add switches as desired to the script to provide a simpler way to run it? e.g. mig --raw or suchlike. ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd

Re: glibc category in the Hurd bug tracker

> People told me that this was not a too good idea, so I'd like to propose > something else instead: we use the glibc Bugzilla tracker for glibc stuff > and Roland adds some magic that makes every report with ``Component'' > equaling ``hurd'' get a cc to added. Roland, > something like that shoul

Re: Moving `migcom' out of `[exec_prefix]/libexec/'

Thomas Schwinge wrote: Hello! In the GNU MIG package, I'd like to move the `migcom' program out of `[exec_prefix]/libexec/' (which is where is currently is being installed) and install it alongside the `mig' program into `[exec_prefix]/bin/' for being able to use it directly, avoiding constructs

Moving `migcom' out of `[exec_prefix]/libexec/'

Hello! In the GNU MIG package, I'd like to move the `migcom' program out of `[exec_prefix]/libexec/' (which is where is currently is being installed) and install it alongside the `mig' program into `[exec_prefix]/bin/' for being able to use it directly, avoiding constructs like ``$(MIG) -cc cat -

[bug #17122] GNU MIG debian dir

Update of bug #17122 (project hurd): Wiki-like text discussion box: #v+ 2006-11-29 Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Makefile.am (debian_files): Remove variable. (EXTRA_DIST): Remove files from `debian/'. * debian/README.Debian: Remove file. * debian/changel

[bug #17122] GNU MIG debian dir

Update of bug #17122 (project hurd): Status:None => Fixed Open/Closed:Open => Closed Wiki-like text discussion box: => #v+ 2006-11-29 Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECT

Re: ``make dist'' and friends

That seems to be correct. I hope that doing so doesn't break anything. (Thinking about the rules in `Makerules.am' that deal with those files.) But you should have noticed if it had... I decided to add the `.srv' and `.cli' files to `EXTRA_DIST' instead. OK gang, I've gotten pre

Re: ``make dist'' and friends

Hello! On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 12:30:13AM -0500, Barry deFreese wrote: > Barry deFreese wrote: > >Thomas Schwinge wrote: > >>On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 12:13:20AM -0500, Barry deFreese wrote: > >>>Barry deFreese wrote: > >>> > [...] I have added a few dist_libkernel_a_SOURCE to include all the