On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Oh, there's a release schedule. It's not due out till April, though.
>
> I agree.
Plenty of time, then. Also, seems like it won't even bootstrap right now
(hence the flood of messages under the relevant threads), so we have the
time to get an eff
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 05:58:29PM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > Perhaps we should look at toolchain-source? I don't like it as a
> > solution, but it already exists.
>
> True. Let's allow gcc 3.1 to progress to the point where we
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Perhaps we should look at toolchain-source? I don't like it as a
> solution, but it already exists.
True. Let's allow gcc 3.1 to progress to the point where we can talk
about this more seriously. For now, I don't think there's any great
demand to
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> Concerning the port of GNAT, I've done the Sparc and PowerPC one and that
> was quite straightforward. I understand that Alpha may be much harder
> because it will be the first Linux/64 bits port.
Preciselythat, and the docs to do such a thing are
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 10:20:42PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> Ok, fine with me. This means however that GCC source package will be
> duplicated (starting from 3.1, as it has been said).
Perhaps we should look at toolchain-source? I don't like it as a
solution, but it already exists.
> Once G
On 2/10, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
| > I'm also very reluctant to package Ada at the same time as the main GCC
| > snapshots because it requires Ada installed to build. Others might
| > argue with me on that point, though.
|
| I agree with the above. If GNAT isn't already compiled on an
|
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:45:58PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > I'm also very reluctant to package Ada at the same time as the main GCC
> > snapshots because it requires Ada installed to build. Others might
> > argue with me on that point, though.
>
> you can tu
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> you can turn off any language in the debian/rules files you want. or
> do you argue that a bootstrap would fail, if no ada compiler already
> exists for the platform?
If my understanding of how they're accomplishing the merge is correct, it
can be disa
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> I'm also very reluctant to package Ada at the same time as the main GCC
> snapshots because it requires Ada installed to build. Others might
> argue with me on that point, though.
I agree with the above. If GNAT isn't already compiled on an
archit
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> I'm also very reluctant to package Ada at the same time as the main GCC
> snapshots because it requires Ada installed to build. Others might
> argue with me on that point, though.
you can turn off any language in the debian/rules files you want. or
do you argue that
Samuel Tardieu writes:
> Dear GCC maintainer,
>
> GNAT (the Ada compiler) sources are currently being checked in in the
> GCC 3.0 tree. It would probably make sense for the GCC team to take over
> the packaging of GNAT on Debian. I can help if needed.
>
> Sam, actual GNAT Debian maintain
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:05:16PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> Dear GCC maintainer,
>
> GNAT (the Ada compiler) sources are currently being checked in in the
> GCC 3.0 tree. It would probably make sense for the GCC team to take over
> the packaging of GNAT on Debian. I can help if needed.
No,
Dear GCC maintainer,
GNAT (the Ada compiler) sources are currently being checked in in the
GCC 3.0 tree. It would probably make sense for the GCC team to take over
the packaging of GNAT on Debian. I can help if needed.
Sam, actual GNAT Debian maintainer
pgp4ljtg5YPHs.pgp
Description: PGP sign
13 matches
Mail list logo
