28 Apr 2005 10:33:49 -0600,
Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Arnaud" == Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Arnaud> About the gcj ABI, it'd be cool to know the plans of the gcj
> Arnaud> devs before putting efforts in packaging java to native ;-)
>
> GCC 4.0 includes the
> "Arnaud" == Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Arnaud> About the gcj ABI, it'd be cool to know the plans of the gcj
Arnaud> devs before putting efforts in packaging java to native ;-)
GCC 4.0 includes the first working version of the BC ABI. However, we
don't yet promise actual bin
> "Arnaud" == Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Arnaud> As Michael pointed out, we first need to have benchmarks to know if
Arnaud> there are real advantages to compile things to native. Also, we could
Arnaud> make choice: do we need to build the libs and the apps? only the apps?
Arna
On 4/28/05, Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> The policy update is our biggest problem nowadays as I see it It is totally
> out of date and needs to to be completely redone for after-sarge anyway.
>
> I will try to start something with it soon.
It was also my intention, we have to c
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 11:42:45AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> (spring cleaning in my mailboxes... ;-))
>
> 29 Mar 2005 21:35:23 +0200,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton) wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> > "Michael Koch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(spring cleaning in my mailboxes... ;-))
29 Mar 2005 21:35:23 +0200,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton) wrote:
Hi David,
> "Michael Koch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Michael,
>> I see no reason to imidiately switch everything to eclipse-ecj
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 12:27:18PM +0200, Michael Koch wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 12:10:28PM +0200, Daniele Cruciani wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:24:26PM +0200, Michael Koch wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 07:49:58PM +0200, Daniele Cruciani wrote:
> > > > Il giorno mar, 29-03-20
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:24:26PM +0200, Michael Koch wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 07:49:58PM +0200, Daniele Cruciani wrote:
> > Il giorno mar, 29-03-2005 alle 18:02 +0200, Michael Koch ha scritto:
> > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 05:35:55PM +0200, Daniele Cruciani wrote:
> > > > would it be done
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 12:10:28PM +0200, Daniele Cruciani wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:24:26PM +0200, Michael Koch wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 07:49:58PM +0200, Daniele Cruciani wrote:
> > > Il giorno mar, 29-03-2005 alle 18:02 +0200, Michael Koch ha scritto:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 29,
[Michael Koch]
> We had this discussion before. And I still think that your
> conclusions is good for commercial distris but bad for Debian.
The conclusion is good for Custom Debian Distributions too. A lot of
users want to leave the hard choices to the domain experts, and trust
the experts to m
"Michael Koch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see no reason to imidiately switch everything to eclipse-ecj and
> gcc-4.0 when it hits debian. We live from freedom of choice and mono
> cultures are bad.
We've talked about this some before, but I'll put in my two cents here
for "choice is ok, but
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 09:35:23PM +0200, David N. Welton wrote:
> "Michael Koch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I see no reason to imidiately switch everything to eclipse-ecj and
> > gcc-4.0 when it hits debian. We live from freedom of choice and mono
> > cultures are bad.
>
> We've talked ab
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 07:49:58PM +0200, Daniele Cruciani wrote:
> Il giorno mar, 29-03-2005 alle 18:02 +0200, Michael Koch ha scritto:
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 05:35:55PM +0200, Daniele Cruciani wrote:
> > > would it be done as
> > >
> > > /usr/bin/time fakeroot dpkg-buildpackage
> > >
> > >
Il giorno mar, 29-03-2005 alle 18:02 +0200, Michael Koch ha scritto:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 05:35:55PM +0200, Daniele Cruciani wrote:
> > would it be done as
> >
> > /usr/bin/time fakeroot dpkg-buildpackage
> >
> > with a java package for testing the gain of eclipse-ecj ?
> >
> > some changes
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 05:35:55PM +0200, Daniele Cruciani wrote:
> would it be done as
>
> /usr/bin/time fakeroot dpkg-buildpackage
>
> with a java package for testing the gain of eclipse-ecj ?
>
> some changes rules or some changes to cdbs for switching java compiler
> by setting a var in rule
would it be done as
/usr/bin/time fakeroot dpkg-buildpackage
with a java package for testing the gain of eclipse-ecj ?
some changes rules or some changes to cdbs for switching java compiler
by setting a var in rules. This second option is good for a number of
reasons, just to test if things work
16 matches
Mail list logo
