On 26 June 2007 at 22:55, Riku Voipio wrote:
| On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 02:32:46PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > So thanks for the hint. Will go into QL 0.9.0 whenever it comes, or an
| > earlier bugfix if needed.
|
| > Now, while I have your undivided attention: shall we block some arches from
| > building QL? I see it using vast compiler resources during builds (all
those
| > C++ templates) and it is just not meant for 'small' systems (for various
| > definitions of small). Any thoughts?
|
| Well, libraries like quantlib might end up somewhere low in the
| build-dependency chain, where some actually usefull-on-slow-cpu app
| needs QL to to build. For example something like gnucash. The other
Unlikely. I've maintained QL since 'forever' and the only reverse-depends is
my own QL-to-R binding RQuantLib.
| problem is that ftp-masters and release maintainers measure archs by
| "how much of the archive is built and up-to-date on the arch".
|
| So, I don't think blocking slow packages like QL from building is a good
| idea. Just be careful when uploading, make sure that there is not stupid
| mistakes which would cause to reupload immeadetly.
Yup. The QL team is pretty good about release every couple of months.
Sometimes I help by getting rc releases into unstable. That can steal quite a
few cycles... but I guess on balance we should just continue 'business as
usual' and build it. Anyway, the worst problems used to come from m68k and
Fortran, and despite some attempts to revive the dead bodies of a few m68k I
think this may be history.
Cheers, Dirk
--
Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something.
-- Thomas A. Edison
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
