Hi Roberto, Quoting Roberto Bagnara (2016-08-06 14:34:14) > On 08/06/2016 02:27 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> Quoting Dmitry Tsarkov (2016-08-04 22:09:56) >>> I'm the implementer of the original FaCT++ system. After checking >>> the project's makefiles I found out that the dependency from the ppl >>> package is optional. The user might use additional commands to turn >>> on options that require this package, but by default it is not >>> needed. Could the dependencies for the Debian package be adjusted to >>> reflect that fact? Alternatively I can make an intermediate release >>> to completely remove the offending options. [...] >> If you can tell - e.g. by providing a patch - how to suppress ppl >> then that would be nice, and adequate for our redistribution of >> FaCT++ in case you prefer for postpone a release till you have other >> more exciting changes. > > May I ask why ppl should be suppressed at all? > The new version upstream (PPL 1.2, released in February 2016) solves > all problems wrt GCC 6. If upgrading to the latest upstream release > is not wanted (why?), then patches have been provided in this very > issue. Kind regards,
Whoops. Seems Dmitry (ill-adviced by me) posted his comment to a wrong bugreport: FaCT++ is linked with a different ppl - not Debian-packaged "ppl" from from http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/ but "cloog-ppl" from http://www.CLooG.org/ . Sorry everyone for the confusion! To answer your question, Roberto (if still relevant): I simply trust Dmitry as author of FaCT++ when he states that "by default [ppl] is not needed". If ppl is somehow better than cloog-ppl, then perhaps now is a chance to try convince Dmitry to switch? Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
