On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 10:10:20AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:42:16AM -0800, David Brown wrote:
> > I did a 'dpkg -s ocaml' and it reported it as non-free/devel. I don't
> > know why it is reporting that for 3.06. It doesn't on another machine
> > that I have.
>
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 10:10:20AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:42:16AM -0800, David Brown wrote:
> > I did a 'dpkg -s ocaml' and it reported it as non-free/devel. I don't
> > know why it is reporting that for 3.06. It doesn't on another machine
> > that I have.
>
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:42:16AM -0800, David Brown wrote:
> I did a 'dpkg -s ocaml' and it reported it as non-free/devel. I don't
> know why it is reporting that for 3.06. It doesn't on another machine
> that I have.
'dpkg -s' dumps information from the database of _installed_ packages
'dpkg
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:42:16AM -0800, David Brown wrote:
> I did a 'dpkg -s ocaml' and it reported it as non-free/devel. I don't
> know why it is reporting that for 3.06. It doesn't on another machine
> that I have.
'dpkg -s' dumps information from the database of _installed_ packages
'dpkg
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:42:16AM -0800, David Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:31:09PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > > Err, what are you speaking about ? both ocaml and coq are in main, and
> > > this since i took over maintainership in 98, well, at least since
> > > shortly thereafte
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:31:09PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Err, what are you speaking about ? both ocaml and coq are in main, and
> > this since i took over maintainership in 98, well, at least since
> > shortly thereafter, don't remember well. There still was some issues,
> > but they were
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:42:16AM -0800, David Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:31:09PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > > Err, what are you speaking about ? both ocaml and coq are in main, and
> > > this since i took over maintainership in 98, well, at least since
> > > shortly thereafte
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:31:09PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Err, what are you speaking about ? both ocaml and coq are in main, and
> > this since i took over maintainership in 98, well, at least since
> > shortly thereafter, don't remember well. There still was some issues,
> > but they were
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:16:24PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 06:32:16AM -0800, David Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 08:15:27AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > > Now, another problem is that a coq/ocaml solution is something very very
> > > remote from what deb
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 06:32:16AM -0800, David Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 08:15:27AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > Now, another problem is that a coq/ocaml solution is something very very
> > remote from what debian developpers are used to, and the step to entry
> > for people to wo
David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 08:15:27AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
>> Now, another problem is that a coq/ocaml solution is something very very
>> remote from what debian developpers are used to, and the step to entry
>> for people to work on it and do modifica
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 08:15:27AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Now, another problem is that a coq/ocaml solution is something very very
> remote from what debian developpers are used to, and the step to entry
> for people to work on it and do modification and bug fixes (or more
> probably new feat
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:16:24PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 06:32:16AM -0800, David Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 08:15:27AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > > Now, another problem is that a coq/ocaml solution is something very very
> > > remote from what deb
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 08:15:27AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Also, i guess it could be possible to do things in a memory friendly way
> in ocaml, controling the GC more strictly and such, but i have no
> experience about those. I guess people running ocaml on iPAQs or on
> embedded boxes could gi
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 06:32:16AM -0800, David Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 08:15:27AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > Now, another problem is that a coq/ocaml solution is something very very
> > remote from what debian developpers are used to, and the step to entry
> > for people to wo
David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 08:15:27AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
>> Now, another problem is that a coq/ocaml solution is something very very
>> remote from what debian developpers are used to, and the step to entry
>> for people to work on it and do modifica
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:58:58AM +0100, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Well, i am not really a coq user, so i don't know if this is actually
> > feasible. I was told it is possible though.
>
> well, as a Coq user I think that it is _A_LOT_ of work to do that. Moreover:
>
> 1. d
Claudio Sacerdoti Coen writes:
Hi,
Well, i am not really a coq user, so i don't know if this is actually
feasible. I was told it is possible though.
well, as a Coq user I think that it is _A_LOT_ of work to do that. Moreover:
1. dpkg is not really a critical application (no lost of h
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 08:15:27AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Now, another problem is that a coq/ocaml solution is something very very
> remote from what debian developpers are used to, and the step to entry
> for people to work on it and do modification and bug fixes (or more
> probably new feat
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 08:15:27AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Also, i guess it could be possible to do things in a memory friendly way
> in ocaml, controling the GC more strictly and such, but i have no
> experience about those. I guess people running ocaml on iPAQs or on
> embedded boxes could gi
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:58:58AM +0100, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Well, i am not really a coq user, so i don't know if this is actually
> > feasible. I was told it is possible though.
>
> well, as a Coq user I think that it is _A_LOT_ of work to do that. Moreover:
>
> 1. d
Claudio Sacerdoti Coen writes:
Hi,
Well, i am not really a coq user, so i don't know if this is actually
feasible. I was told it is possible though.
well, as a Coq user I think that it is _A_LOT_ of work to do that. Moreover:
1. dpkg is not really a critical application (no lost of huma
Hi,
> Well, i am not really a coq user, so i don't know if this is actually
> feasible. I was told it is possible though.
well, as a Coq user I think that it is _A_LOT_ of work to do that. Moreover:
1. dpkg is not really a critical application (no lost of human lifes,
no lost of money
Hi,
> Well, i am not really a coq user, so i don't know if this is actually
> feasible. I was told it is possible though.
well, as a Coq user I think that it is _A_LOT_ of work to do that. Moreover:
1. dpkg is not really a critical application (no lost of human lifes,
no lost of money
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:14:54PM +0100, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I don't post very often on this list. But a thread join one of my idea :
> rebuilding dpkg in ocaml.
>
> I see some arguments against :
> - need to control memory
Well, actually the m
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:14:54PM +0100, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I don't post very often on this list. But a thread join one of my idea :
> rebuilding dpkg in ocaml.
>
> I see some arguments against :
> - need to control memory
Well, actually the m
Hello all,
I don't post very often on this list. But a thread join one of my idea :
rebuilding dpkg in ocaml.
I see some arguments against :
- need to control memory
And some arguments pro :
- coq proof.
In fact, from my point of view, ocaml is a very good language to do
clean code.
My
Hello all,
I don't post very often on this list. But a thread join one of my idea :
rebuilding dpkg in ocaml.
I see some arguments against :
- need to control memory
And some arguments pro :
- coq proof.
In fact, from my point of view, ocaml is a very good language to do
clean code.
My
28 matches
Mail list logo
