As some who has complained about overproceduralizing before, I'm a
little shocked by what seems to be ad hominom attacks and a lack of
understanding about the way we do things.
Let me start by saying that since the Ian Murdock days (or later), it
has been Debian Policy which has made us more than
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > Instead, "Compiler maintenance group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and
> > "Debian boot floppies team" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> should be
> > used.
>
> You have a chicken & egg problem here: @packages.debian.org just passes
> the mail on to the address listed in the Maintainer field
Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Instead, "Compiler maintenance group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and
> "Debian boot floppies team" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> should be
> used.
You have a chicken & egg problem here: @packages.debian.org just passes
the mail on to the address listed in the Maintainer field
Previously Brederlow wrote:
> Look at g++, which is now replaced by eg++. The only thing that made
> the change difficult, where (and I think still are) some packages that
> use obscure stuff, that was g++ Vx.x.x specific (well, and some small
> bugs).
Unfortunately that is often necessary: g++ d
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 15:40:23 +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > I agree that this would be a more pleasing solution. Currently the
> > > packages.debian.org address database is based on the maintainer
> > > addresses from the Packages file, so that would have to be
On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 15:40:23 +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > I agree that this would be a more pleasing solution. Currently the
> > packages.debian.org address database is based on the maintainer
> > addresses from the Packages file, so that would have to be changed.
> > Joey?
>
> What do you
J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 13:47:53 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I don't very much like either of "Compiler maintenance group
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" and "Enrique Zanardi " because
> > it does not structurally solve the problem it addresses.
> >
> > Instead, "Comp
Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When considering poratibility and code cleaness, the only answere one
> can give to this question is "CC=cc".
>
> No sourcecode should rely on gcc or any of its extensions. And if it
> doesn`t use any gcc specific stuff, it should not rely on gcc.
I disagr
On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 13:47:53 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't very much like either of "Compiler maintenance group
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" and "Enrique Zanardi " because
> it does not structurally solve the problem it addresses.
>
> Instead, "Compiler maintenance group" <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Enrique Zanardi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 07:47:20PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 08:21:31PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe we should use something like
> > > "Compiler maintenance group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>", but I'
On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 07:47:20PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 08:21:31PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 17:29:24 +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > > Could anyone please tell me why Galen is still listed as egcc mainatiner?
> >
> > Because
On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 09:46:31 +0100, Brederlow wrote:
> When considering poratibility and code cleaness, the only answere one
> can give to this question is "CC=cc".
What about CXX? What about the C9X standard when it's finished? Should we
have CC=c89 then?
> No sourcecode should rely on gcc o
When considering poratibility and code cleaness, the only answere one
can give to this question is "CC=cc".
No sourcecode should rely on gcc or any of its extensions. And if it
doesn`t use any gcc specific stuff, it should not rely on gcc.
A rule to use gcc or a garanty that cc will be gcc on all
On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 08:21:31PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 17:29:24 +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > Could anyone please tell me why Galen is still listed as egcc mainatiner?
>
> Because he is still the EGCS maintainer.
>
> > There were a lot of uploads by other
14 matches
Mail list logo
