Hi,
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 04:50:10PM -0500, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> On minor point, though: are you aware of other binaries in a similar
> situation? The patch to enable non-custom build was not trivial and, had I
> not
> been upstream as well, I wonder whether an upstream developper would w
On 09/29/2010 03:35 PM, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
Le 29/09/2010 14:24, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
Well, I think its more that most upstream do not see the advantage
of compiling in non-custom mode... What would you tell them ?
The original reason was to avoid unstrippable binaries, which violate
p
Le 29/09/2010 14:24, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
Well, I think its more that most upstream do not see the advantage of
compiling in non-custom mode... What would you tell them ?
The original reason was to avoid unstrippable binaries, which violate
policy (cf. #256900). The fix on OCaml side is si
Le mercredi 29 septembre 2010 04:14:42, Stéphane Glondu a écrit :
> Le 28/09/2010 23:50, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
> > On minor point, though: are you aware of other binaries in a similar
> > situation? The patch to enable non-custom build was not trivial and, had
> > I not been upstream as well, I
Le 28/09/2010 23:50, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
On minor point, though: are you aware of other binaries in a similar
situation? The patch to enable non-custom build was not trivial and, had I not
been upstream as well, I wonder whether an upstream developper would want to
work on it or a DD be able
5 matches
Mail list logo
