On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 08:13 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> 2010/9/9, Adam D. Barratt :
> > The changelog for an earlier version mentions
> >
> >- debian/control.in/source: Build-Depends on ocaml-nox (>= 3.11.2),
> > ocaml-best-compilers | ocaml-nox, dh-ocaml (>= 0.9.1).
> >
> > which appea
Hi,
2010/9/9, Adam D. Barratt :
> The changelog for an earlier version mentions
>
>- debian/control.in/source: Build-Depends on ocaml-nox (>= 3.11.2),
> ocaml-best-compilers | ocaml-nox, dh-ocaml (>= 0.9.1).
>
> which appears to have been lost in this version of the package.
Indeed, thi
On Sun, August 29, 2010 22:10, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> 2010/8/24, Arthur Loiret :
>> llvm-2.6 is on its way, and will be quite simple: no source changes
>> from the llvm package, just a few packaging bits.
>
> There you go:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~aloiret/squeeze/llvm/llvm-2.6_2.6-10.dsc
> htt
Le 29/08/2010 23:10, Arthur Loiret a écrit :
> There you go:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~aloiret/squeeze/llvm/llvm-2.6_2.6-10.dsc
> http://people.debian.org/~aloiret/squeeze/llvm/llvm-2.6_2.6-10.debdiff
From the diff:
> define libllvm-ocaml-dev_extra_binary
> if test "x$*" = "xlibllvm-oc
2010/8/24, Arthur Loiret :
> llvm-2.6 is on its way, and will be quite simple: no source changes
> from the llvm package, just a few packaging bits.
There you go:
http://people.debian.org/~aloiret/squeeze/llvm/llvm-2.6_2.6-10.dsc
http://people.debian.org/~aloiret/squeeze/llvm/llvm-2.6_2.6-10.debd
2010/8/23, Adam D. Barratt :
> On Wed, August 18, 2010 11:50, Arthur Loiret wrote:
>> 2010/8/18, Adam D. Barratt :
This package still needs a bit of work, but not on this
side.
>>>
>>> Ah, I'd assumed everything was basically ready to go and just waiting to
>>> be uploaded. How much is "a
On Wed, August 18, 2010 11:50, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> 2010/8/18, Adam D. Barratt :
>>> This package still needs a bit of work, but not on this
>>> side.
>>
>> Ah, I'd assumed everything was basically ready to go and just waiting to
>> be uploaded. How much is "a bit of work"? One issue I did notic
On Wed, August 18, 2010 11:50, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> 2010/8/18, Adam D. Barratt :
>> As I said, my primary concern from a release point of view is whether
>> there are good reasons for doing the changes now, rather than waiting
>> for squeeze+1.
>
> As Matthias said, the reason is to get the good
2010/8/18, Adam D. Barratt :
> As I said, my primary concern from a release point of view is whether
> there are good reasons for doing the changes now, rather than waiting
> for squeeze+1.
As Matthias said, the reason is to get the good llvm version installed
when users type "apt-get install llvm
On 18.08.2010 07:13, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 02:09 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
2010/8/16, Adam D. Barratt:
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 22:21 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
2010/8/15, Adam D. Barratt:
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 19:01 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
- Rename the current
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 02:09 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> 2010/8/16, Adam D. Barratt :
> > On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 22:21 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> >> 2010/8/15, Adam D. Barratt :
> >> > On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 19:01 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> >> >>- Rename the current "llvm" source package t
2010/8/16, Adam D. Barratt :
> On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 22:21 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
>> 2010/8/15, Adam D. Barratt :
>> > On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 19:01 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
>> >>- Rename the current "llvm" source package to "llvm-2.6" and
>> >> replace binaries by versioned binaries. Thu
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 22:21 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> 2010/8/15, Adam D. Barratt :
> > On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 19:01 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> >>- Rename the current "llvm" source package to "llvm-2.6" and
> >> replace binaries by versioned binaries. Thus, it is allowed to have
> >> two v
2010/8/15, Adam D. Barratt :
> On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 19:01 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
>> We would like to make llvm
>> 2.7 (which is already used by clang and openjdk) the default version,
>> but some packages (ldc and python-llvm) still need llvm 2.6.
> [...]
>> The things to do would be:
>>-
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 19:01 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> We would like to make llvm
> 2.7 (which is already used by clang and openjdk) the default version,
> but some packages (ldc and python-llvm) still need llvm 2.6.
[...]
> The things to do would be:
>- Rename the current "llvm" source pack
Hi!
During the DebConf, Matthias Klose and I discussed about llvm in
Squeeze and took a few decisions, but the freeze has been announced
before I uploaded the corresponding work. We would like to make llvm
2.7 (which is already used by clang and openjdk) the default version,
but some packages (ld
16 matches
Mail list logo