Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 14.12.2011, 17:44 + schrieb Wookey:
I anyone is aware of packages where it really isn't possible to do an
automatic bootstrap without a circular dependency (for the initial
bootstrap build), I would like to know about it.
again, GHC comes to mind. When I ported it to
+++ Steve Langasek [2011-12-13 10:45 -0800]:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:29:23PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
I think the traditional expectation here is that compilers will do
their initial bootstrap using an out-of-archive binary, and that once
in the archive, they'll be maintained using
On 12/15/2011 01:44 AM, Wookey wrote:
defined by
Build-Depends-Stage1 in control
Hi,
I watched the debconf11 video about bootstraping video (yes,
I in Banja Luka, but regrettably didn't attend this one).
My understanding of it was that last summer, there was no
Build-Depends-Stage1
defined in
On 12/13/2011 01:23 PM, Thomas Koch wrote:
So is it ok to ship binaries in the source package that are only
required during build? Can I do the same with simple-build-tool,
which requires itself to build?
Depends on the need. It is quite common for compilers to have some
binaries to do
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:03:55PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 12/13/2011 01:23 PM, Thomas Koch wrote:
So is it ok to ship binaries in the source package that are only
required during build? Can I do the same with simple-build-tool,
which requires itself to build?
Depends on the
On 12/13/2011 07:26 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:03:55PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 12/13/2011 01:23 PM, Thomas Koch wrote:
So is it ok to ship binaries in the source package that are only
required during build? Can I do the same with simple-build-tool,
which
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:29:23PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
I think the traditional expectation here is that compilers will do
their initial bootstrap using an out-of-archive binary, and that once
in the archive, they'll be maintained using a self-build-depends
instead.
You mean having
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 13.12.2011, 19:29 +0100 schrieb Mehdi Dogguy:
You mean having a circular build-dependency? That isn't great :/
I've seen some packages doing that (don't recall which right now) but
didn't like it, tbh.
ghc does, for instance.
Greetings,
Joachim
--
Joachim nomeata
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:45:21AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:29:23PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
I think the traditional expectation here is that compilers will do
their initial bootstrap using an out-of-archive binary, and that once
in the archive, they'll
On 12/13/2011 07:26 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:03:55PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 12/13/2011 01:23 PM, Thomas Koch wrote:
So is it ok to ship binaries in the source package that are only
required during build? Can I do the same with simple-build-tool,
which
On 2011-12-13, Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 13.12.2011, 19:29 +0100 schrieb Mehdi Dogguy:
You mean having a circular build-dependency? That isn't great :/
I've seen some packages doing that (don't recall which right now) but
didn't like it, tbh.=20
ghc does, for
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 08:30:22PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
But then I don't see how you could avoid circular build-dependencies
with compilers written in their own language. fpc/fp-compiler does the
same.
You can avoid it by having a bootstrap compiler written in another
suitable language,
Le 13/12/2011 21:30, Philipp Kern a écrit :
But then I don't see how you could avoid circular build-dependencies
with compilers written in their own language. fpc/fp-compiler does the
same.
OCaml, F# (and Scala, it seems) do that by targetting a bytecode for
which there exists an independent
13 matches
Mail list logo
