Op Wed, 30 Aug 2006, schreef Florian Klaempfl:
> That's what I would recommend nvidia for years: provide their drivers as
> assembler files. Nobody can proof that it is actually compiled and they
> don't release more knowledge than they actually do and the gpl trolls
> can't flame anymore :)
Nv
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
That's what I would recommend nvidia for years: provide their drivers as
assembler files. Nobody can proof that it is actually compiled and they
don't release more knowledge than they actually do and the gpl trolls
can't flame anymore :)
Nobody wil
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> That's what I would recommend nvidia for years: provide their drivers as
> assembler files. Nobody can proof that it is actually compiled and they
> don't release more knowledge than they actually do and the gpl trolls
> can't flame anymore :)
Nobody will believe they han
Come on, the linux package systems are stupid and stupid systems can be
fooled. One can provide a fpc bootstrap package containing precompiled
assembler files which are assembled when built.
That's what I would recommend nvidia for years: provide their drivers as
assembler files. Nobody can proof
>
>> I would love to be a maintainer and build .deb files, however I do not
>> own a 64 bit CPU and can't afford one at the moment because it would
>> also mean a new motherboard and RAM too, so that crosses me out pretty
>> much. In fact, I really would love to see Free Pascal packages in the
>> U
Hello,
On 8/28/06, Rob van der Linde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thank you very much, I was waiting for the release of 2.0.4 so I could
compile .DEB packages for Ubuntu Dapper as I had previously compiled the
2.0.2 release for Ubuntu for people to download. I just found out that
there are now off
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 22:05 +0100, peter green wrote:
> the problem is that ubuntu has a general policy against binary uploads
> (because it ensures that the packages can indeed be built on systems
> other than the maintainers private system).
I think that this is the case for all distributions.
On 29 Aug 06, at 22:05, peter green wrote:
> > For the recursive build-dep. This is a onetime issue.
> This is making the rather uncertain assumption that each version
> can be built with the last (not true with all 1.9.x versions
> though maybe more effort is being made post 2.0.0).
FPC policy
Op Tue, 29 Aug 2006, schreef peter green:
>
> > For the recursive build-dep. This is a onetime issue.
> This is making the rather uncertain assumption that each version can be
> built with the last (not true with all 1.9.x versions though maybe more
> effort is being made post 2.0.0).
It i
> For the recursive build-dep. This is a onetime issue.
This is making the rather uncertain assumption that each version can be built
with the last (not true with all 1.9.x versions though maybe more effort is
being made post 2.0.0).
>The
> maintainer needs once to make
> a binary upload and
On 29 Aug 06, at 19:50, Stefan Kisdaroczi wrote:
> peter green schrieb:
.
.
> [1] The current issue:
> Until freepascal 2.0.4-rc3 the deb build worked as it should, but with the
> the final release is fails.
> The reason was the missing libgdb binary. So I downloaded it and it worked
> again, b
On 29 Aug 06, at 18:46, Rob van der Linde wrote:
.
.
> I would love to be a maintainer and build .deb files, however I do not
> own a 64 bit CPU and can't afford one at the moment because it would
> also mean a new motherboard and RAM too, so that crosses me out pretty
> much. In fact, I really w
Hi,
peter green schrieb:
>> I would love to be a maintainer and build .deb files, however I do not
>> own a 64 bit CPU and can't afford one at the moment because it would
>> also mean a new motherboard and RAM too, so that crosses me out pretty
>> much. In fact, I really would love to see Free Pas
> I would love to be a maintainer and build .deb files, however I do not
> own a 64 bit CPU and can't afford one at the moment because it would
> also mean a new motherboard and RAM too, so that crosses me out pretty
> much. In fact, I really would love to see Free Pascal packages in the
> Ubuntu
Stefan Kisdaroczi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Daniël Mantione wrote:
>> Op Tue, 29 Aug 2006, schreef Rob van der Linde:
>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> It would be nice to see 64 bit .DEB packages downloadable too, in the
>>> future maybe. I think .DEB packages are very important to support, since
>>> Ubuntu is now one
Hi,
Daniël Mantione wrote:
>
> Op Tue, 29 Aug 2006, schreef Rob van der Linde:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> It would be nice to see 64 bit .DEB packages downloadable too, in the
>> future maybe. I think .DEB packages are very important to support, since
>> Ubuntu is now one of the top Linux distros.
>
> .d
Yeah I am aware you need a full Latex install, because I built Free
Pascal 2.0.2 about a month ago in Ubuntu Dapper (32-bit) myself, and put
the .deb files up on the Ubuntu forum for people to download. Even with
still fairly limited Linux knowledge I found it quite easy to build
however, even inst
Op Tue, 29 Aug 2006, schreef Rob van der Linde:
> Thank you very much, I was waiting for the release of 2.0.4 so I could
> compile .DEB packages for Ubuntu Dapper as I had previously compiled the
> 2.0.2 release for Ubuntu for people to download. I just found out that
> there are now official .D
Thank you very much, I was waiting for the release of 2.0.4 so I could
compile .DEB packages for Ubuntu Dapper as I had previously compiled the
2.0.2 release for Ubuntu for people to download. I just found out that
there are now official .DEB packages so it will no longer be necessary
for me to bui
Hello everybody,
I'm happy to announce that release 2.0.4 is
finally out, bringing you lots of fixes and some
enhancements over the previous officially
released versions. I hope you'll enjoy the
release, special thanks go to all of you who
helped us with their all kinds of contributions
(bug
20 matches
Mail list logo
