On 1/26/2015 9:59 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jan 26 18:46, Achim Gratz wrote:
These are the last packages depending on libgmp3 (on 32bit only). Could
these either be recompiled or dropped so that the old gmp library can be
removed? I really don't want to compile it again with gcc-4.9.2 fo
Corinna Vinschen writes:
> I checked in code which fixes this issue, which simplifies the package
> choosing algorithm when clicking on the package line, and which
> implements the default package in a way which never "downgrades" a
> package without the user's explicit consent by choosing the lowe
Corinna Vinschen writes:
> Removed. Btw., do we still need the obsolete ppl-devel?
By now everybody should have switched to libppl-devel via dependency, so
I think this can also go now.
Regards,
Achim.
--
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+
Waldorf MIDI Implem
Corinna Vinschen writes:
> Dunno about the other packages, but cocom is a build requirement for
> Cygwin. We can rebuild it, but not remove it.
The "or dropped" was targeted at rakudo and parrot, as the other
packages have active maintainers. But if somebody adopts them and also
provides them fo
I'm attempting to upload a new version of readline 6.3. However, the
32-bit version named the devel package 'readline' 6.1 (the
release/readline/setup.hint describes a direct package for headers and
such, and release/readline/libreadline7/setup.hint describes the dlls),
while the 64-bit version 6.
On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 22:11 +, Klaus Ebbe Grue wrote:
> Name: Klaus Grue
> Package: logiweb
Key installed.
--
Yaakov
Name: Klaus Grue
Package: logiweb
BEGIN SSH2 PUBLIC KEY
Comment: "2048-bit RSA, converted by grue@tyr from OpenSSH"
B3NzaC1yc2EDAQABAAABAQCbJXn+fIvcirRonnL7tmKDXR05MQRriPhB+6mvcd
yYO6t86otqeKssRqGDrK3J1Y3WZC28r+h2sk0w+7j/4tO90HL8Hei+cTF7pBJvuXLanE1r
8pezJnqiTSFndd2upkrES9arDiINve1
On Jan 26 11:45, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 26 11:15, Achim Gratz wrote:
> > Corinna Vinschen writes:
> > > No, no. Thanks for noticing! I was sure that the comparison operators
> > > are comparing using compareVersions() under the hood so I didn't check.
> > > How embarrassing. Now I see
On Jan 26 18:46, Achim Gratz wrote:
>
> These are the last packages depending on libgmp3 (on 32bit only). Could
> these either be recompiled or dropped so that the old gmp library can be
> removed? I really don't want to compile it again with gcc-4.9.2 for
> just this handful of packages.
>
> B
On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 18:46 +0100, Achim Gratz wrote:
> These are the last packages depending on libgmp3 (on 32bit only). Could
> these either be recompiled or dropped so that the old gmp library can be
> removed? I really don't want to compile it again with gcc-4.9.2 for
> just this handful of p
On Jan 24 16:32, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen writes:
> > Marco, Achim, Yaakov? Anybody of you here?
> >
> >
> > I mean, hey, how are we going to go forward if nobody even bothers to
> > reply? :(
>
> I just came back from a business trip halfway around the world.
Sorry, but we can't a
On Jan 26 18:46, Achim Gratz wrote:
>
> These are the last packages depending on libgmp3 (on 32bit only). Could
> these either be recompiled or dropped so that the old gmp library can be
> removed? I really don't want to compile it again with gcc-4.9.2 for
> just this handful of packages.
>
> B
Just a quick update on the libopenssl098 frontier:
On Jan 14 15:13, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> it's really *really* overdue to remove the OpenSSL 0.98 DLLs from
> the 32 bit distro. Fortunately they were never in the 64 bit distro.
>
> The problem is that we still have packages requiring libope
On 1/26/2015 12:32 PM, Christian Kellermann wrote:
* Marco Atzeri [150110 11:00]:
Christian,
any problem with the instructions ?
Sorry, none. It seemed that my initial mail for the SSH key has
been lost. I have uploaded the packages as stated in the instructions
and added my mail in the !emai
These are the last packages depending on libgmp3 (on 32bit only). Could
these either be recompiled or dropped so that the old gmp library can be
removed? I really don't want to compile it again with gcc-4.9.2 for
just this handful of packages.
Both parrot and rakudo are only available on 32bit
On 12/10/2014 7:28 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote:
On 12/10/2014 12:25 PM, Christian Kellermann wrote:
Dear List,
I am a core developer of the CHICKEN scheme system. We have supported
building and running CHICKEN on cygwin for almost a decade now. However
I noticed that the current cygwin package has b
* Marco Atzeri [150110 11:00]:
> Christian,
> any problem with the instructions ?
Sorry, none. It seemed that my initial mail for the SSH key has
been lost. I have uploaded the packages as stated in the instructions
and added my mail in the !email file.
I hope all goes well.
What lists do I hav
On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 11:31 +0100, Christian Kellermann wrote:
> Name: Christian Kellermann
> Package: chicken
Updated cygwin-pkg-maint and installed your key.
--
Yaakov
On Jan 26 11:15, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen writes:
> > No, no. Thanks for noticing! I was sure that the comparison operators
> > are comparing using compareVersions() under the hood so I didn't check.
> > How embarrassing. Now I see that they only do a casecompare, as you said.
>
>
On Jan 26 11:20, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen writes:
> > What if the "test" version gets removed, without updating "curr"?
>
> Then there presumably was a good reason to pull that test version.
>
> > What would make more(?) sense is sticking to "installed" instead,
> > because the v
On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 10:58 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 25 18:20, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Example:
> >
> > foo-1.22-1 is installed
> > foo-1.23-1 is curr
> > foo-1.24-1 is test
> > ==> Setup chooses 1.23-1 as default.
> >
> > User installs 1.24-1. Next Setup run:
> >
> >
Name: Christian Kellermann
Package: chicken
BEGIN SSH2 PUBLIC KEY
Comment: "5012-bit RSA, converted by ckellerm@devpool08 from OpenSSH"
B3NzaC1yc2EDAQABAAACcwykoG217tPyg4XiJl1Aar2q//xTCFukpgQKC2UW4Z
gq++bvwh5TNioceh3UEbFZkgzZ3IXiAhYStb/1sTAmytU2AQv+uaCvZMV5u7tnBc5kATxX
TsTp4PjwbrV
Corinna Vinschen writes:
> What if the "test" version gets removed, without updating "curr"?
Then there presumably was a good reason to pull that test version.
> What would make more(?) sense is sticking to "installed" instead,
> because the version number is higher than the "curr" version.
Corinna Vinschen writes:
> No, no. Thanks for noticing! I was sure that the comparison operators
> are comparing using compareVersions() under the hood so I didn't check.
> How embarrassing. Now I see that they only do a casecompare, as you said.
That's arguably a bug in the comparison operator
On Jan 25 18:20, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Example:
>
> foo-1.22-1 is installed
> foo-1.23-1 is curr
> foo-1.24-1 is test
> ==> Setup chooses 1.23-1 as default.
>
> User installs 1.24-1. Next Setup run:
>
> foo-1.24-1 is installed
> foo-1.23-1 is curr
> foo-1.24-1 is test
> ==>
Hi Achim,
On Jan 25 19:42, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen writes:
> > Instead of always defaulting to the curr version, Setup now checks if
> > the installed version of a package is higher than the curr version of
> > the package. If so, and if a test version exists for this package, it
>
Hi David,
On Jan 25 23:46, David Stacey wrote:
> On 25/01/15 17:20, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >Instead of always defaulting to the curr version, Setup now checks if
> >the installed version of a package is higher than the curr version of
> >the package.
>
> This sounds like a great idea - providi
27 matches
Mail list logo
