Hi Sam,
On 12/2/19 6:12 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Thomas" == Thomas Goirand writes:
>
> Thomas> Sam,
>
> Thomas> Is this a real life case (if so, please name the
> Thomas> package...), or just a pure fictional one, just because you
> Thomas> love debating?
>
> Thomas>
* Neil McGovern:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 05:18:35PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 11/29/19 11:32 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> > Imagine that we have a program that has compile time support for systemd
>> > and for other mechanisms. It provides enhanced functionality when built
>> > against sy
Thomas Goirand writes:
> On 11/29/19 11:32 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Ian, I find that I'm not able to answer Simon's question with regard to
>> Proposal D.
>>
>> Imagine that we have a program that has compile time support for systemd
>> and for other mechanisms. It provides enhanced functionalit
> "Thomas" == Thomas Goirand writes:
Thomas> Sam,
Thomas> Is this a real life case (if so, please name the
Thomas> package...), or just a pure fictional one, just because you
Thomas> love debating?
Thomas> Cheers,
So, first of all, note that this question has already be
On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 05:18:35PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/29/19 11:32 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > Imagine that we have a program that has compile time support for systemd
> > and for other mechanisms. It provides enhanced functionality when built
> > against systemd, but when so built
On 11/29/19 11:32 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> Ian, I find that I'm not able to answer Simon's question with regard to
> Proposal D.
>
> Imagine that we have a program that has compile time support for systemd
> and for other mechanisms. It provides enhanced functionality when built
> against sys
Thibaut Paumard writes ("Re: Question Under Proposal D: Compile Time Option"):
> I think the right fix would be to compile the package twice as "foo"
> (for the systemd version) and "foo-non-systemd".
>
> Another option would be to ship both versions in p
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> On 11/30/19 8:58 AM, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
>> I think the right fix would be to compile the package twice as "foo"
>> (for the systemd version) and "foo-non-systemd".
>> Another option would be to ship both versions in package "foo" and
>> decide at runtime which one to
On 11/30/19 8:58 AM, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> I think the right fix would be to compile the package twice as "foo"
> (for the systemd version) and "foo-non-systemd".
>
> Another option would be to ship both versions in package "foo" and
> decide at runtime which one to run, if technically feasi
Le 29/11/2019 à 23:32, Sam Hartman a écrit :
>
> Ian, I find that I'm not able to answer Simon's question with regard to
> Proposal D.
>
> Imagine that we have a program that has compile time support for systemd
> and for other mechanisms. It provides enhanced functionality when built
> against
Ian, I find that I'm not able to answer Simon's question with regard to
Proposal D.
Imagine that we have a program that has compile time support for systemd
and for other mechanisms. It provides enhanced functionality when built
against systemd, but when so built, it cannot run without systemd
11 matches
Mail list logo
