Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit:
> No, that was actually quite helpful. I am chasing this around because
> someone who wrote me offlist suggested that it actually depended on more
> libraries than I had listed. I checked with objdump, and it agrees with
> the generated field
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 07:38:05PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Well, what about the coq for example, which is 7 MB package (on i386, so
> > maybe it is bigger for other arches) and 20MB installed.
>
> I guess it's on the line.
I thought so, But sure, this is the biggest proj
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit:
> No, that was actually quite helpful. I am chasing this around because
> someone who wrote me offlist suggested that it actually depended on more
> libraries than I had listed. I checked with objdump, and it agrees with
> the generated field
Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Well, what about the coq for example, which is 7 MB package (on i386, so
> maybe it is bigger for other arches) and 20MB installed.
I guess it's on the line.
> There is also the buildd resources, especially on the slower
> arches. I guess it takes much time to build coq on m6
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> also sprach Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.10.03.0013 +0200]:
> > Please could someone sponsor an upload of IJS?
>
> Please give me exact information what this does. I'd be happy to
> sponsor you if I know more and if I know about the general t
Scott, are you still out there? On 6-17 you said you could sign my key,
and I've tried to get in touch with you twice since then.
Otherwise, I'm still looking for an existing developer to sign my key,
in the Minneapolis area, near the UMN campus. I don't have a car and
can't drive anyway, so it wo
Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Well, what about the coq for example, which is 7 MB package (on i386, so
> maybe it is bigger for other arches) and 20MB installed.
I guess it's on the line.
> There is also the buildd resources, especially on the slower
> arches. I guess it takes much time to build coq on m
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> also sprach Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.10.03.0013 +0200]:
> > Please could someone sponsor an upload of IJS?
>
> Please give me exact information what this does. I'd be happy to
> sponsor you if I know more and if I know about the general
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 11:25:55AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Since the bytecode executables are arch independent, i think it would be
> > nice to build them arch: all, since this would mean, apart from smaller
> > sized packages, also that we don't have 12+ version of the sam
Scott, are you still out there? On 6-17 you said you could sign my key,
and I've tried to get in touch with you twice since then.
Otherwise, I'm still looking for an existing developer to sign my key,
in the Minneapolis area, near the UMN campus. I don't have a car and
can't drive anyway, so it w
also sprach Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.10.04.2051 +0200]:
> In case you don't mind, I'm about upload IJS later today. If you want to
> take over, go ahead.
All yours.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMA
This one time, at band camp, Michel Dänzer said:
> On Don, 2002-10-03 at 20:09, Stephen Gran wrote:
> >
> > In my control file, I just use ${shlibs:Depends} in the Depends: field.
> > After building (in a Woody chroot, thanks to pbuilder - great tool!) I
> > get a Depends: that looks like this:
>
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 06:17:32PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.10.03.0013 +0200]:
> > Please could someone sponsor an upload of IJS?
>
> Please give me exact information what this does. I'd be happy to
> sponsor you if I know more and if I know
also sprach Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.10.03.0013 +0200]:
> Please could someone sponsor an upload of IJS?
Please give me exact information what this does. I'd be happy to
sponsor you if I know more and if I know about the general topic that
this library deals with.
--
martin;
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 11:25:55AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Since the bytecode executables are arch independent, i think it would be
> > nice to build them arch: all, since this would mean, apart from smaller
> > sized packages, also that we don't have 12+ version of the sa
also sprach Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.10.04.2051 +0200]:
> In case you don't mind, I'm about upload IJS later today. If you want to
> take over, go ahead.
All yours.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; net
En réponse à Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Since the bytecode executables are arch independent, i think it would
> be
> > nice to build them arch: all, since this would mean, apart from
> smaller
> > sized packages, also that we don't have 12+ version of the same thing
>
This one time, at band camp, Michel Dänzer said:
> On Don, 2002-10-03 at 20:09, Stephen Gran wrote:
> >
> > In my control file, I just use ${shlibs:Depends} in the Depends: field.
> > After building (in a Woody chroot, thanks to pbuilder - great tool!) I
> > get a Depends: that looks like this:
>
Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Since the bytecode executables are arch independent, i think it would be
> nice to build them arch: all, since this would mean, apart from smaller
> sized packages, also that we don't have 12+ version of the same thing in
> the archive (well, at least we can spare all the arche
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 06:17:32PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.10.03.0013 +0200]:
> > Please could someone sponsor an upload of IJS?
>
> Please give me exact information what this does. I'd be happy to
> sponsor you if I know more and if I kno
also sprach Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.10.03.0013 +0200]:
> Please could someone sponsor an upload of IJS?
Please give me exact information what this does. I'd be happy to
sponsor you if I know more and if I know about the general topic that
this library deals with.
--
martin;
Zeno Davatz (2002-10-04 11:13:59 +0200) :
> On 2.10.2002 19:28 Uhr, "Simon Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The "i" in front of the comma.
>>
>> Simon
> Thanks. Do you have an idea why my Debian still wants to install
> apache-common when I make apt-get install php4?
Maybe because php
En réponse à Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Since the bytecode executables are arch independent, i think it would
> be
> > nice to build them arch: all, since this would mean, apart from
> smaller
> > sized packages, also that we don't have 12+ version of the same thing
>
Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Since the bytecode executables are arch independent, i think it would be
> nice to build them arch: all, since this would mean, apart from smaller
> sized packages, also that we don't have 12+ version of the same thing in
> the archive (well, at least we can spare all the arch
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 01:44:50PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Fre, 2002-10-04 at 10:09, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > >
> > > Sven LUTHER:
> > > > Is there a way to handle this so that apt will get the native code
> > > > package
Zeno Davatz (2002-10-04 11:13:59 +0200) :
> On 2.10.2002 19:28 Uhr, "Simon Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The "i" in front of the comma.
>>
>> Simon
> Thanks. Do you have an idea why my Debian still wants to install
> apache-common when I make apt-get install php4?
Maybe because ph
On Fre, 2002-10-04 at 10:09, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> >
> > Sven LUTHER:
> > > Is there a way to handle this so that apt will get the native code
> > > package if it is available, and resort to the bytecode one on arches not
> > > sup
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 01:20:34PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sven Luther:
> > In case i submit a patch or something such, should i discuss things
> > first, or just go ahead and implement it ?
> >
> Probably talk about it first... though frankly I don't see a different way
> of imp
Hi,
Sven Luther:
> In case i submit a patch or something such, should i discuss things
> first, or just go ahead and implement it ?
>
Probably talk about it first... though frankly I don't see a different way
of implementing what you want, and the feature would be nice. (I got
bitten by it recent
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 12:23:41PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Stefano Zacchiroli:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > I'd split the packages in three:
> > > - ocaml (arch-independent, common stuff)
> > > - ocaml-bytecode (ditto, bytecode interp
Hi,
Stefano Zacchiroli:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > I'd split the packages in three:
> > - ocaml (arch-independent, common stuff)
> > - ocaml-bytecode (ditto, bytecode interpreter)
> > - ocaml-native (arch-dependent, compiles to native code)
>
> You mis
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 01:44:50PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Fre, 2002-10-04 at 10:09, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > >
> > > Sven LUTHER:
> > > > Is there a way to handle this so that apt will get the native code
> > > > packag
On Fre, 2002-10-04 at 10:09, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> >
> > Sven LUTHER:
> > > Is there a way to handle this so that apt will get the native code
> > > package if it is available, and resort to the bytecode one on arches not
> > > su
On 2.10.2002 19:28 Uhr, "Simon Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The "i" in front of the comma.
>
> Simon
Thanks. Do you have an idea why my Debian still wants to install
apache-common when I make apt-get install php4?
My control file is now (sorry the last one was the old one):
Source: ap
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 01:20:34PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sven Luther:
> > In case i submit a patch or something such, should i discuss things
> > first, or just go ahead and implement it ?
> >
> Probably talk about it first... though frankly I don't see a different way
> of im
Hi,
Sven Luther:
> In case i submit a patch or something such, should i discuss things
> first, or just go ahead and implement it ?
>
Probably talk about it first... though frankly I don't see a different way
of implementing what you want, and the feature would be nice. (I got
bitten by it recen
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 12:23:41PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Stefano Zacchiroli:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > I'd split the packages in three:
> > > - ocaml (arch-independent, common stuff)
> > > - ocaml-bytecode (ditto, bytecode inter
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> I'd split the packages in three:
> - ocaml (arch-independent, common stuff)
> - ocaml-bytecode (ditto, bytecode interpreter)
> - ocaml-native (arch-dependent, compiles to native code)
You miss the point: the ocaml package is alrea
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sven LUTHER:
> > Is there a way to handle this so that apt will get the native code
> > package if it is available, and resort to the bytecode one on arches not
> > supporting the native code compiler ? Some sort of priori
Hi,
Stefano Zacchiroli:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > I'd split the packages in three:
> > - ocaml (arch-independent, common stuff)
> > - ocaml-bytecode (ditto, bytecode interpreter)
> > - ocaml-native (arch-dependent, compiles to native code)
>
> You mi
Hi,
Sven LUTHER:
> Is there a way to handle this so that apt will get the native code
> package if it is available, and resort to the bytecode one on arches not
> supporting the native code compiler ? Some sort of priorities or
> something such ?
>
I'd split the packages in three:
- ocaml (arch-i
On 2.10.2002 19:28 Uhr, "Simon Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The "i" in front of the comma.
>
> Simon
Thanks. Do you have an idea why my Debian still wants to install
apache-common when I make apt-get install php4?
My control file is now (sorry the last one was the old one):
Source: a
Hello, ...
Well, this will be a complex question, and the subject is not all that
speaking, i apologize for it...
I maintain the ocaml package, which is a language which can produce
bytecode executables to be run in a virtual machine (as java does) or
native code executables (well, the source is
On 2.10.2002 19:28 Uhr, "Simon Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The "i" in front of the comma.
>
> Simon
Thanks. Do you have an idea why my Debian still wants to install
apache-common when I make apt-get install php4?
My control file is now:
Source: apache-ssl-ywesee
Section: web
Priority
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> I'd split the packages in three:
> - ocaml (arch-independent, common stuff)
> - ocaml-bytecode (ditto, bytecode interpreter)
> - ocaml-native (arch-dependent, compiles to native code)
You miss the point: the ocaml package is alre
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sven LUTHER:
> > Is there a way to handle this so that apt will get the native code
> > package if it is available, and resort to the bytecode one on arches not
> > supporting the native code compiler ? Some sort of prior
46 matches
Mail list logo
