That's okay, as long as there is the possibility of back-porting
eggs to older versions.
Paulo Jabardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, new eggs wouldn't be available.
>
> Paulo
>
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http:
I think that a simple solution, that would not solve this particular problem
but might help in the future is to have an egg repository for each version. So
if someone is using an older version of chicken, the chicken-setup will use the
appropriate repository. However, new eggs wouldn't be availa
Ivan Raikov scripsit:
>
>
> We don't use Sun's implementation of Java, because it's not
> ideologically pure ;-) Plus everyone knows that good programming
> languages have a specification that doesn't shift like quicksand...
Well, Algol (60 and 68) should meet your needs, then, as should PL/
We don't use Sun's implementation of Java, because it's not
ideologically pure ;-) Plus everyone knows that good programming
languages have a specification that doesn't shift like quicksand...
Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thank you. I was just going to mention that. What do D
You make a good point; actually, I would say that Debian needs to
have a package for each individual egg, so that the developer who
wishes to release Debian packages of their Chicken code can have
precise control over dependencies. But then this means that the egg
repository must match egg versi
On Dec 7, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Zbigniew wrote:
It seems to me that if Debian provides a Chicken 2.3 package for
stability reasons, then Debian should also provide a 2.3 eggs package
and keep it up to date. Using chicken-setup is inherently "unstable"
from the perspective of Debian stable, since t
It seems to me that if Debian provides a Chicken 2.3 package for
stability reasons, then Debian should also provide a 2.3 eggs package
and keep it up to date. Using chicken-setup is inherently "unstable"
from the perspective of Debian stable, since the eggs are constantly
updated and haven't gone
Well, I am not the maintainer for the Debian Chicken package, so I
don't know. But unless the more recent versions of Chicken depend on
libraries or library versions that are not present in Debian, it's
probably not that difficult. Actually, the real problem here would be
that the Debian relea
Thanks for your replies regarding this.
I've just managed to install easyffi by removing the -G option from
easyffi.setup.
But it looks like I'll have to have a go at self-compilation. Being a Debian
user I'm extremely unused to this sort of thing. Wish me luck ;-)
On Thursday 07 December 2006
Hello Ivan,
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:04:57 -0500 Ivan Raikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think even the most simple kind of Chicken/egg versioning would
> go a long way. For example, I can build easyffi and use it in Chicken
> 2.3 if I simply remove the -G option. So if chicken-setup support
I think even the most simple kind of Chicken/egg versioning would
go a long way. For example, I can build easyffi and use it in Chicken
2.3 if I simply remove the -G option. So if chicken-setup supported
different build commands for different versions of Chicken, this would
make packaging Chic
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:55:55 -0600 Zbigniew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also wonder if the wiki syntax should be extended to add basic
> stuff like 'function syntax' and 'variable' and so on--things that
> are present in texi and eggdoc and would add semantic value.
That would also make possibl
On 12/7/06, Daishi Kato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does smoke come out of the box when the number of requests increase?
> If so, how much? (Hey, you never know unless you ask.)
Oh, I don't hope it smoke,s by now.
Too bad. I could have helped you with that one! :-)
Well, I can try writing t
On 12/7/06, felix winkelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about eggdoc->wiki? (just a thought, possibly silly)
That would only work as a one-shot thing--once people start changing
the wiki, your eggdoc is out of date. You might as well write a wiki
page to start with, and make that the canon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Richard,
On Dec 7, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Richard Lewis wrote:
Hello CHICKEN users,
I'm new both to chicken scheme and, in fact, to scheme itself. I
was attracted
to chicken as soon as I saw that it had a very simple module
management
system.
Hello CHICKEN users,
I'm new both to chicken scheme and, in fact, to scheme itself. I was attracted
to chicken as soon as I saw that it had a very simple module management
system.
I have experienced a few problems with installing some of the eggs though. It
seems that two important eggs (i.e.
Hi,
I'm currently apart from the machine I used for the result, but let me
answer to the following questions.
Hi Daishi,
Some questions:
So, this is a graph of total run-time after N sequential requests?
exactly.
There's no concurrency here?
Believe so. I'm not the one who made the client
On 12/7/06, Daishi Kato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Please let me continue on this issue.
The result of measuring time for a certain repeat of the RPC request
shows not a liner curve but somewhat exponential.
The figure attached show it with the number of repeated requests at
x-axis and the
Hi!
> I can put 2 IPs on the same host and configure apache to
> listen to port 80 on one IP and spiffy to listen to port 80 on the
> other.
What about configuring mod_proxy in Apache to redirect certain URLs to
the Spiffy process?
Groetjes,
Peter.
_
Hi guys
I have a server in which I need to run apache for some homepages
which are already running. But I am building almost every new thing
(which is not a lot of things) using web-scheme + spiffy.
My spiffy server is currently listening to port 8080, because apache
is on 80.
I was thinking a
20 matches
Mail list logo
