Thomas Koch writes:
> Hi,
>
> I just made a fool of myself on the simple-build-tool list by claiming that
> Debian would build scala without scala. I only checked debian/rules and
> debian/control and since scala is in main, I assumed that I must be right.
>
> However scala comes with a bytecode
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 14.12.2011, 17:44 + schrieb Wookey:
> I anyone is aware of packages where it really isn't possible to do an
> automatic bootstrap without a circular dependency (for the initial
> bootstrap build), I would like to know about it.
again, GHC comes to mind. When I ported it
On 12/15/2011 01:44 AM, Wookey wrote:
> defined by
> Build-Depends-Stage1 in control
Hi,
I watched the debconf11 video about bootstraping video (yes,
I in Banja Luka, but regrettably didn't attend this one).
My understanding of it was that last summer, there was no
Build-Depends-Stage1
defined i
+++ Steve Langasek [2011-12-13 10:45 -0800]:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:29:23PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> > > I think the traditional expectation here is that compilers will do
> > > their initial bootstrap using an out-of-archive binary, and that once
> > > in the archive, they'll be maintain
Le 13/12/2011 21:30, Philipp Kern a écrit :
> But then I don't see how you could avoid circular build-dependencies
> with compilers written in their own language. fpc/fp-compiler does the
> same.
OCaml, F# (and Scala, it seems) do that by targetting a bytecode for
which there exists an independen
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 08:30:22PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> But then I don't see how you could avoid circular build-dependencies
> with compilers written in their own language. fpc/fp-compiler does the
> same.
You can avoid it by having a bootstrap compiler written in another
suitable languag
On 2011-12-13, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 13.12.2011, 19:29 +0100 schrieb Mehdi Dogguy:
>> You mean having a circular build-dependency? That isn't great :/
>> I've seen some packages doing that (don't recall which right now) but
>> didn't like it, tbh.=20
> ghc does, for instance.
On 12/13/2011 07:26 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:03:55PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
>> On 12/13/2011 01:23 PM, Thomas Koch wrote:
>
>>> So is it ok to ship binaries in the source package that are only
>>> required during build? Can I do the same with simple-build-tool,
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:45:21AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:29:23PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> > > I think the traditional expectation here is that compilers will do
> > > their initial bootstrap using an out-of-archive binary, and that once
> > > in the archive,
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 13.12.2011, 19:29 +0100 schrieb Mehdi Dogguy:
> You mean having a circular build-dependency? That isn't great :/
> I've seen some packages doing that (don't recall which right now) but
> didn't like it, tbh.
ghc does, for instance.
Greetings,
Joachim
--
Joachim "nomeata"
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:29:23PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> > I think the traditional expectation here is that compilers will do
> > their initial bootstrap using an out-of-archive binary, and that once
> > in the archive, they'll be maintained using a self-build-depends
> > instead.
> You mea
On 12/13/2011 07:26 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:03:55PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
>> On 12/13/2011 01:23 PM, Thomas Koch wrote:
>
>>> So is it ok to ship binaries in the source package that are only
>>> required during build? Can I do the same with simple-build-tool,
>
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:03:55PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 12/13/2011 01:23 PM, Thomas Koch wrote:
> > So is it ok to ship binaries in the source package that are only
> > required during build? Can I do the same with simple-build-tool,
> > which requires itself to build?
> Depends on t
On 12/13/2011 01:23 PM, Thomas Koch wrote:
>
> So is it ok to ship binaries in the source package that are only
> required during build? Can I do the same with simple-build-tool,
> which requires itself to build?
>
Depends on the need. It is quite common for compilers to have some
binaries to
On Di, Dez 13, 2011 at 13:23:25 (CET), Thomas Koch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just made a fool of myself on the simple-build-tool list by claiming that
> Debian would build scala without scala. I only checked debian/rules and
> debian/control and since scala is in main, I assumed that I must be right.
>
Hi,
I just made a fool of myself on the simple-build-tool list by claiming that
Debian would build scala without scala. I only checked debian/rules and
debian/control and since scala is in main, I assumed that I must be right.
However scala comes with a bytecode-compiled scala compiler in lib/ w
16 matches
Mail list logo
