Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adding them to build-essential would take a policy amendment...but now that
> we've reached a consensus on debian-devel, they can be Essential: yes
> instead.
That's as it should be, anyway. Now to move at least emacs from /usr
to / so that it can rep
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 05:52:54PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 13:20, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > And build-depend on all available versions of emacs...
>
> That'd be silly. Instead, we should just add them to build-essential.
Adding them to build-essential would take a po
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 13:20, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:30:08PM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote:
>
> > Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > The byte compilation should be done when the package is built, not
> > > at runtime, not at install time.
> >
> > So you're say
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:30:08PM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The byte compilation should be done when the package is built, not
> > at runtime, not at install time.
>
> So you're saying that the maintainer should need to either create
> separate pac
>>"Adam" == Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> The byte compilation should be done when the package is built,
Adam> not at runtime, not at install time.
That's certainly an opinion, though it does not address the
technical reasons that prompted the compile-at-install behaviou
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The byte compilation should be done when the package is built, not at runtime,
> not at install time.
That doesn't work for languages that change their bytecode spec with
each version of their interpreter, and don't maintain backwards
compatibility.
--
Sam
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> Emacs doesn't do runtime byte compilation. Debian emacs add on
>> modules to install time bye compilation, which is not run time. Any
>> reason you think byte compilation ought not to happen on
>> i
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:56:08PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Not to mention requiring huge amounts of disk space for Emacs packages
> > even though the maintainer is likely to use only one.
> Is debian for maintainers or users?
Making it prohibitively
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is debian for maintainers or users?
Users are well-served by not requiring a maintainer to release new
byte-compiled versions of a package for a new flavor of Emacs.
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors!
Stealing a rhinoceros shou
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Mark Brown wrote:
> Not to mention requiring huge amounts of disk space for Emacs packages
> even though the maintainer is likely to use only one.
Is debian for maintainers or users?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:30:08PM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote:
> current (and future) Emacs flavors within the one package, even though
> for most people that will be useless data?
Not to mention requiring huge amounts of disk space for Emacs packages
even though the maintainer is likely to use onl
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The byte compilation should be done when the package is built, not
> > at runtime, not at install time.
>
> So you're saying that the maintainer should need to either create
> separate packages for a given add-o
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The byte compilation should be done when the package is built, not
> at runtime, not at install time.
So you're saying that the maintainer should need to either create
separate packages for a given add-on for all current (and future)
Emacs flavors, or that
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Emacs doesn't do runtime byte compilation. Debian emacs add on
> modules to install time bye compilation, which is not run time. Any
> reason you think byte compilation ought not to happen on
> installation? (slowing down the install is one
>>"Adam" == Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> Um, you byte-compile when building the package, duh.
Adam> Any runtime compilation is wrong(and yes, I include emacs in this).
Emacs doesn't do runtime byte compilation. Debian emacs add on
modules to install time bye compilation
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Gerhard Muntingh wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 01:36:40PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > On Apr 07, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Isn't it a bit heavy to make debconf depend on python ?
> >
> > Why would debconf have to depend on python? You stick the module in
> > and on
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:36:23AM +0200, Stefan Hornburg (Racke) wrote:
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > > I guess that the package will have to predepend on python, right?
> > > So, unlike the current debconf usage, a debconf dependency is no
> > > lo
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 14:00, Gerhard Muntingh wrote:
> whaah! No compiled debconfscripts on my machine. While it
> would be nice to have python bindings, I'd really like to
> hack all sorts of scripts when I need to.
Byte-compiling Python modules isn't the same as compiling C code; it's
an optimi
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 01:36:40PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Apr 07, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Isn't it a bit heavy to make debconf depend on python ?
>
> Why would debconf have to depend on python? You stick the module in
> and only bytecompile if python is installed.
whaah! No compil
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Hornburg (Racke)) cum veritate scripsit:
> > No, pre-depending on python will not ensure that your package's
> > config script has python available at preconfgiuration time.
>
> So we are really restricted to a fix set of packages at preconfiguration
> time ? Hmm, that's
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > I guess that the package will have to predepend on python, right?
> > So, unlike the current debconf usage, a debconf dependency is no
> > longer sufficient.
>
> No, pre-depending on python will not ensure that your package
Jérôme Marant wrote:
> I guess that the package will have to predepend on python, right?
> So, unlike the current debconf usage, a debconf dependency is no
> longer sufficient.
No, pre-depending on python will not ensure that your package's
config script has python available at preconfgiu
Le dim 07/04/2002 à 20:50, Joey Hess a écrit :
> > Isn't it a bit heavy to make debconf depend on python ?
>
> Um, I can include a language binding in debconf w/o making it depend on
> that language.
But that won't solve the problem ; if a package using the python module
is preconfigured when th
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> > Aside from this problem, I wouldn't mind including the module in debconf
>> > after woody is released. It looks nice.
>>
>> Isn't it a bit heavy to make debconf depend on python ?
>
> Um, I can include a language binding in debc
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Aside from this problem, I wouldn't mind including the module in debconf
> > after woody is released. It looks nice.
>
> Isn't it a bit heavy to make debconf depend on python ?
Um, I can include a language binding in debconf w/o making it depend on
that language.
--
On Apr 07, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Isn't it a bit heavy to make debconf depend on python ?
Why would debconf have to depend on python? You stick the module in
and only bytecompile if python is installed.
(This is the same silly attitude that has lead to a lot of unnecessary
-elisp packages.)
Le dim 07/04/2002 à 17:54, Joey Hess a écrit :
> What's worse, you can really only safley use essential and base packages
> in debconf config scripts. You can of course depend on python and use
> this python module in your postinst, after dependencies are met, but
> depednencies (and even pre-depe
Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Being tired of the shell, and not knowing perl enough, I have written a
> > little python module for debconf.
> >
> > I haven't tested it thouroughly, but it seems to work fine. Of course,
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Being tired of the shell, and not knowing perl enough, I have written a
> little python module for debconf.
>
> I haven't tested it thouroughly, but it seems to work fine. Of course, I
> intend to use it, but if people are i
Being tired of the shell, and not knowing perl enough, I have written a
little python module for debconf.
I haven't tested it thouroughly, but it seems to work fine. Of course, I
intend to use it, but if people are interested, it can be found at :
http://www.ens-lyon.fr/~jmouette/debian/
30 matches
Mail list logo
