Luca Capello wrote:
> tags 503255 + upstream
> tags 503255 + patch
> tags 503255 + fixed-upstream
> thanks
>
> Hi David!
>
> Since Thiemo Seufer did the last SBCL upload, I now directly cc:ed him
> to be sure he reads this message.
>
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:
reassign 492740 cl-f2cl
thanks
David Bremner wrote:
> Package: cl-f2cl
> Version: 20080222-1
> Severity: important
>
> Hi;
>
> I'm not sure if this is an sbcl problem or an f2cl problem.
>
> (require 'f2cl)
>
> fails in sbcl-1.0.18.0-1
>
> the last part of the output is
>
>
> ; compiling
Liam Healy wrote:
> I don't have any Debian packages, but I don't like this.
> I've come to dislike the "cl-" prefix for anything, because it
> implies that the language in which the software is written in is the
> most important thing. I don't see "c-" "perl-" etc. for other
> languages, I don't
Liam Healy wrote:
> Hi all-
>
> Thanks for your responses and all your work getting SBCL moving again.
> A check of http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sbcl.html indicates that at
> the moment, SPARC is the only blocker, and this is evidently because
> of 453903, which is in a package I presume relate
Peter Van Eynde wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> Luca Capello wrote:
> >> Given the bootstrap problem, we should IMHO rather get SBCL going
> >> again on those architectures than ask for removal of the 0.9.16
> >> binaries from lenny.
> >
> > Since manpower for the Debian Common Lisp Team is lacking (help
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
[snip]
> > and then several architectures on which there are no binaries (alpha,
> > mipsel, sparc), but that shouldn't block the other architectures,
> > should it?
>
> There _are_ binaries for these three in lenny, but not in sid, this
> bloc
Liam Healy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With rumblings about lenny freezing for release in September, I took a
> look at what's in testing and found that SBCL is stuck at 0.9.16 for
> i386 and amd64 at least; according to
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sbcl.html this appears to be from
> several causes.
>
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 05:54:55PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 04:34:23PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > > I've created a swap file of 4 GB, which should give about 9 GB that can
> > > > be allocated, and res
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
[snip]
> > This is no new behaviour of SBCL, and rather a implementation limitation
> > than a bug. SBCL needs to reserve a fixed contiguous address space for
> > its GC-managed memory. Linux 2.6 kernels reserve by default memory or
> > backing store count for such mmapped-but-no
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Package: sbcl
> Version: 1:1.0.15.0-2
> Severity: serious
>
> Hi,
>
> Your package is failing to build on amd64 with the following error:
> //entering make-host-1.sh
> //building cross-compiler, and doing first genesis
> mmap: Cannot allocate memory
> ensure_space: failed to
Hello All,
I plan to upload sbcl 1.0.15.0-2 tomorrow. If this collides with any
other ongoing work please shout. The changelog entry is:
sbcl (1:1.0.15.0-2) unstable; urgency=low
* Re-allow builds for mips and mipsel (Closes: #463569)
-- Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 28 Ma
Hello,
could one of the project admins add me to the Team? I'm upstream
maintainer for SBCL/MIPS and would like to fix #463569. :-)
My alioth login is: ths (@debian.org).
Thiemo
___
pkg-common-lisp-devel mailing list
pkg-common-lisp-devel@lists.aliot
FYI.
Thiemo
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
I've just checked in (as sbcl-1.0.14.33) an update to a couple of
alpha runtime files, with the result that the system builds again on
linux; I've tested on 2.6.18 as in Debian etch. I haven't done
extensive fixing, and in particular I suspect that sb-posix
13 matches
Mail list logo
