On 11101 March 1977, Brendon Costa wrote:
>>> EDoc++ binaries are currently around 20M. It does not require any
>>> special binutils etc, but will just use what is already available for
>>> the system. I am currently building a single non-policy conformant .deb
>>> package.
>> I think the concern
Steve Langasek wrote:
>> I am not sure where the 1G comes from, unless talking about the
>> duplicity across various mirrors.
>
> No, this is an estimate based on the actual usage of pool/main/g/gcc-4.1 on
> current Debian mirrors. (12 archs * 3 versions * n binary packages)
>
> Your note on the
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 07:49:56PM +1000, Brendon Costa wrote:
> The tarball of all source necessary to build EDoc++ is 25M and extracted
> it is: 47M.
> EDoc++ stores in its source tree patches against GCC along with the GCC
> original tarballs, and at build time will extract the gcc tarballs in
Thomas Jollans wrote:
> On Saturday 04 August 2007, Brendon Costa wrote:
>> EDoc++ binaries are currently around 20M. It does not require any
>> special binutils etc, but will just use what is already available for
>> the system. I am currently building a single non-policy conformant .deb
>> packag
On Saturday 04 August 2007, Brendon Costa wrote:
> EDoc++ binaries are currently around 20M. It does not require any
> special binutils etc, but will just use what is already available for
> the system. I am currently building a single non-policy conformant .deb
> package.
I think the concern is m
>
>> I believe that edoc doesn't use the code generator, only the front
>> end, so it doesn't need care from port maintainers.
>
The GCC modification attempts to change as little in the GCC framework
as possible and just performs analysis on the data structures generated
by GCC as it compiles co
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 03:35:14PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Hmm, I would question whether this is something we'd want to include in the
> > Debian archive as-is; I think we already have way too many gcc packages
> > being carried around with our releases and that we need to try to make thi
* Steve Langasek:
> Hmm, I would question whether this is something we'd want to include in the
> Debian archive as-is; I think we already have way too many gcc packages
> being carried around with our releases and that we need to try to make this
> number go down, not add more copies of the gcc s
Thanks for the response.
>
> Hmm, I would question whether this is something we'd want to include in the
> Debian archive as-is; I think we already have way too many gcc packages
> being carried around with our releases and that we need to try to make this
> number go down, not add more copies of
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 07:46:44AM +1000, Brendon Costa wrote:
> I have a software project that I plan on creating Debian packages for
> which is quite different from many other packages in that it also
> installs patched versions of GCC and Doxygen (That must not conflict
> with existing install
10 matches
Mail list logo
