> Sorry, I miscommunicated: the server *only* serves as memory for the clients.
> I.e., the clients fetch the binary from the server, that's all.
I don't understand at all this kind of architecture. Are you speaking of
thin-clients here or why must fricas be moved to the server if at
runtime th
Waldek Hebisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Furthermore, make install should not simply overwrite a present fricas
> > installation, but rather ask, don't you think?
> >
>
> That would be unusual.
OK.
> > > Concerining release, I think it would be good to provide some bianaries.
> > > I
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On 10/17/2008 08:43 PM, Martin Rubey wrote:
> > Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>> The procedure here worked as follows:
> >>> * compile (as ordinary user) on a user machine
> >>> * copy it to a server machine (which ha
Martin Rubey wrote:
>
> Waldek Hebisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > - Closure CL has now experimental version for 32-bit Linux (64-bit
> > Linux was supported for long time) and for Windows. There was
> > a glitch in the way Closure CL was installed -- it required presence
> > of bui
Hi Martin,
On 10/17/2008 08:43 PM, Martin Rubey wrote:
> Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> The procedure here worked as follows:
>>> * compile (as ordinary user) on a user machine
>>> * copy it to a server machine (which has different architecture) with
>>> special
>>> priviledg
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The procedure here worked as follows:
>
> > * compile (as ordinary user) on a user machine
> > * copy it to a server machine (which has different architecture) with
> > special
> > priviledges (I'm not sure whether root was enough here)
> > * make
> The procedure here worked as follows:
> * compile (as ordinary user) on a user machine
> * copy it to a server machine (which has different architecture) with special
> priviledges (I'm not sure whether root was enough here)
> * make install on the server machine.
Sounds not like a big probl
Gaby,
I am concerned about the internal representation of the InputForm
value. I presume that the display (rendering) of InputForm is
essential 1-1 with it's representation - syntax aside. Why is it so
much more complicated than it needs to be? Compare it to the follow
InputForm values generated
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10/17/2008 09:31 AM, Martin Rubey wrote:
> > A remotely similar problem: make install (at least with ecl) requires
> > presence
> > of *source* tree, which posed some problems here in Hannover.
>
> I don't know for sure, but I tend to see this as a
On 10/17/2008 09:31 AM, Martin Rubey wrote:
> A remotely similar problem: make install (at least with ecl) requires presence
> of *source* tree, which posed some problems here in Hannover.
I don't know for sure, but I tend to see this as a bug. But thinking
twice... you usually type "./configure
Waldek Hebisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - Closure CL has now experimental version for 32-bit Linux (64-bit
> Linux was supported for long time) and for Windows. There was
> a glitch in the way Closure CL was installed -- it required presence
> of build tree.
A remotely similar prob
11 matches
Mail list logo
